a similar situation (kinda).

At a small tournament in bournmouth (my 3rd or 4th) I managed to get onto the final table, on the last round, with a souped up Turr and 2 bounty hunters. I did my usual 2 BH on the right side and Turr on the left, however I placed him on my board edge rather then as far forward as usual. I then did a hard 1 turn and declared a barrel roll towards me, not realizing until I Put the 1 template down that I couldn't complete it.

I was under the impression that your board edge was like another ship or obstacle in regards to barrel rolling or boosting, I was wrong.

I felt rather defeated, as you would barrel rolling 34 points off the table in your first turn.

Was my opponent correct to not allow me to take it back? yes he was, in the faq under competitive play it states that when you declare a boost or barrel roll you must complete it even if you leave the table.

Do I wish he would have allowed me to take it back? Of course. I came to the tournament to have fun games, and that pretty much ruined the last game (due to my own fault).

Would I have allowed an opponent to take it back? I hope so.

Ultimately, there is no requirement to fly causal, or play nice. The same way you arent required to say please and thank you in real life, or to give money to charity, or to hold the door open for people behind you.

Not sure why this is still going, but those of you who have a problem with allowing the cloak action had better go freak out at the germans too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhfOfl90ixU

At about 11:30 the rebel player allows the imperial player to roll the defense die he forgot to on the phantom. Now the rebel player went on to win anyway but can you imagine the scandal if echo had laid multiple hits on wedge as a result?

To the OP:

The only people that mattered in those situations was the you, your opponent, and the judge (to ensure the event isn't rigged). In this instance, it seems fairly obvious that both you and your opponent are being sportsmanlike and that what the observer feels really doesn't matter.

At about 11:30 the rebel player allows the imperial player to roll the defense die he forgot to on the phantom. Now the rebel player went on to win anyway but can you imagine the scandal if echo had laid multiple hits on wedge as a result?

That looks like a completely different situation. It appears in the video (I don't speak German so I'm not sure) that the extra dice was a range 3 bonus. If true, then rolling that extra die was simply correcting the game state (ie. that dice should have been ruled according to the rules), and wasn't about allowing the opponent to correct a misplay.

At about 11:30 the rebel player allows the imperial player to roll the defense die he forgot to on the phantom. Now the rebel player went on to win anyway but can you imagine the scandal if echo had laid multiple hits on wedge as a result?

That looks like a completely different situation. It appears in the video (I don't speak German so I'm not sure) that the extra dice was a range 3 bonus. If true, then rolling that extra die was simply correcting the game state (ie. that dice should have been ruled according to the rules), and wasn't about allowing the opponent to correct a misplay.

Ultimately, there is no requirement to fly causal, or play nice. The same way you arent required to say please and thank you in real life, or to give money to charity, or to hold the door open for people behind you.

You see, this attitude really annoys me. Why is someone's entire status as a decent chap to play with entirely dependent on whether or not he lets you fix your mistakes? Why is sticking with the rules considered an example of bad manners? It should be the other way around; choosing to sulk and whine because your opponent doesn't play your squad for you is the height of bad form.

Rules are a form of law and are about maintaining a system, not about social norms.

Manners are about social norms. In this case, the expected social norm is to allow a correction of a administrative error (as opposed to a tactical error). Therefore, although you do not understand why, the rest of us have determined that, in general, it is better to "fly casual."

Additionally, I personally would not want to win a tournament or any game because my opponent made such an error, but because I flew better.

Manners are about social norms. In this case, the expected social norm is to allow a correction of a administrative error (as opposed to a tactical error).

Failure to use ACD in a situation where using it is the best play is not an administrative error, it's a tactical error. An administrative error would be declaring that you are cloaking and forgetting to place the token, and then placing it later once you realize it is missing.

Therefore, although you do not understand why, the rest of us have determined that, in general, it is better to "fly casual."

And this is what I object to: letting your opponent go back and fix bad decisions is not an inherent part of "fly casual". I am tired of this concept of "don't be a {censored}" getting turned into some kind of obligation to let your opponent cheat or you're taking the game too seriously.

Additionally, I personally would not want to win a tournament or any game because my opponent made such an error, but because I flew better.

But not making errors is part of flying better. Being able to keep track of everything under pressure is a skill, and it should be rewarded. Winning a game because you were better at that skill is perfectly legitimate.

Do I wish he would have allowed me to take it back? Of course. I came to the tournament to have fun games, and that pretty much ruined the last game (due to my own fault).

But where do you draw the line then? If you rolled all blanks and lost Phennir on the first turn would you hope that your opponent would let you re-roll the dice so that you don't suffer a crushing early loss? If you picked the wrong maneuver at a key moment and ended up out of arc would you hope that your opponent would let you change your maneuver so that you get to shoot? If you flew off the table with a badly-chosen maneuver would you hope that your opponent would let you keep the ship? If not, how is this any different? You failed to judge the available distance correctly and lost a ship. It is not reasonable to hope that your opponent will let you break the rules and get your ship back just because you don't want to lose the game.

At about 11:30 the rebel player allows the imperial player to roll the defense die he forgot to on the phantom. Now the rebel player went on to win anyway but can you imagine the scandal if echo had laid multiple hits on wedge as a result?

This isn't the same situation at all. Rolling the correct number of defense dice is not an optional thing, if you roll the wrong number you are obligated to fix it. And if your opponent allows you to roll the wrong number because it benefits them then they are cheating.

The situation in the OP is completely different because failing to re-cloak the phantom is a legal game state, it just isn't a very good strategy.

The arguments going on here are precisely why I do not tournament play. It takes the fun out of it for me when it is treated as life and death.

GrandMoffMatt...don't give up. There have been around 3 vocal people who have been opposed to more casual play. I also respect their right to play that way. Honestly, I think that as long as people are up front about the way they play it is usually all good. What I find problematic is when someone is willing to take a take-back but not give one...or vice versa honestly.

Failure to use ACD in a situation where using it is the best play is not an administrative error, it's a tactical error. An administrative error would be declaring that you are cloaking and forgetting to place the token, and then placing it later once your realize it is missing.

Manners are about social norms. In this case, the expected social norm is to allow a correction of a administrative error (as opposed to a tactical error).

Therefore, although you do not understand why, the rest of us have determined that, in general, it is better to "fly casual."

And this is what I object to: letting your opponent go back and fix bad decisions is not an inherent part of "fly casual". I am tired of this concept of "don't be a {censored}" getting turned into some kind of obligation to let your opponent cheat or you're taking the game too seriously.

We know that you object to it. My point is that the rest of us, in spite of you not understanding why, still think it is better to allow for a certain margin of error greater than yours. This in turn does create a social stigma when one fails to act so. It is the very nature of the social construct that is "manners" that this is the case.

Additionally, "too seriously" in itself is a gradient and therefore subject to relativistic principles. So, you are very much in the position of the proverbial rat in a cage. *hums Bullet with Buttefly Wings*

I agree that keeping track of things is a skill. Just not one because of which I would want to win. I would prefer better list building, flying, and of course, the ever present equilizer...dice rolling.

Also, it is noted that your very statement is what many would refer to as WAAC. Not meaning this with all the negative associations, but that your primary goal in the game is winning. For others it seems to be winning alongside or even after having a completely positive social interaction.

As stated before, I would have no problem playing a style such as yours where all such mistakes may not be taken back. Especially if I knew ahead of time. I would give the same courtesy back. However, I prefer to play the other way and it seems as if most here do as well.

Failure to declare and token ACD in a series of steps is, to many people on this board (at least the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate), an administrative error when ACD is understood to be taken (such as when it has been taken every turn and no other option is likely to be taken). Also, we can use a different term than administrative, but the result is the same.

Again, this was not a mistake in the series of steps. The OP did not say "I'm cloaking" and forget to put the token next to the ship, they forgot about ACD entirely. This is a major strategy mistake, not a trivial error of not putting your cardboard in the right place.

We know that you object to it. My point is that the rest of us, in spite of you not understanding why, still think it is better to allow for a certain margin of error greater than yours. This in turn does create a social stigma when one fails to act so. It is the very nature of the social construct that is "manners" that this is the case.

I know that's how you think, and I'm tired of that kind of entitled attitude. Fixing a mistake should be considered a huge gift that you are not in any way entitled to expect, not a default state that is part of having "good manners".

Also, it is noted that your very statement is what many would refer to as WAAC.

Many people would call it that, but many people are also TFGs. Playing by the rules is not WAAC behavior, but you know what is? Expecting to be allowed to take back your mistakes. If the mistake isn't a big deal then why is it so important to fix it? Just "fly casual", accept that you lost a ship, and have fun with the rest of the game.

For others it seems to be winning alongside or even after having a completely positive social interaction.

I want a positive social interaction, which is why I oppose using "fly casual" to pressure people in to letting their opponents take back mistakes. Part of having a positive social interaction is just accepting the consequences of making a mistake and not putting your opponent in a situation where they have to feel like the bad guy if they don't let you get away with breaking the rules.

Maybe iPeregine is overselling it, but in many cases allowing a take-back is often not just allowing an opponent to fix a mistake, but it is allowing them to do so at a point where they gain an additional advantage they would not have had if they just executed the action or ability at the proper time in the first place.

Allowing an action out of turn is at times allowing an action to be taken with more information then should have been available. Allowing an ability to execute out of sequence could be a huge advantage if a player has already taken attacks/actions/maneuvers based on the current board state. In such cases you aren't just getting to fix n mistake but you are getting to take advantage of the mistake you made and gain advantage from it.

That's why an overall attitude of good sportsmanship means you must give your opponent take-backs is an untenable position. The rules allow you to grant your opponent leeway when you feel it is warranted, but there are many cases in which it is not warranted to do so. In some cases allowing a take-back is just letting get a leg up through their sloppy play, there is no way good sportsmanship should mandate that.

In this case it seems the opponent assumed he had re-cloacked, had no reason to think he would have done otherwise, and had made no plays under the idea that his opponent was not cloaked (taking certain actions, not spending certain tokens, shot selection). If he had done any of those things or have had reason to think that his opponent might have meant to not re-clock (such as having no ability to de-cloack next turn) then he very well have said no to his opponent asking to put a the token out. Had he done so in no way would he have been any less of a good sport.

Beneath the bluster, I believe that is iPergine's underlying point. An over arching attitude of good sportsmanship demanding that you allow your opponent take-backs is not conducive to competitive play or the "Fly Casual" concept. The rules allow you to grant you open leeway when you deem fit, sportsmanship should not force you to give your opponent carte blanche to demand that leeway.

The overall point I think is that allowing an opponent to fix a mistake is what is known in moral theory as a "supererogatory action". You are not under any obligation to do so; it is above and beyond what is necessary to allow for mere good sportsmanship. Where issues arise is with the expectation that a supererogatory action MUST be performed (this is one of the common criticisms of "greatest good" moral theories such as naive utilitarianism).

Of course, there is also a supererogatory action that the person who made the original mistake can perform. When your opponent offers to allow you to fix a mistake, you can refuse and live with the error. As a rule, that is my preference. This isn't meant to imply any criticism of the OP- the whole point is that this is beyond "must" or even "should". It's interesting to note though that in this case, if both players perform a supererogatory action, the result is the same as if neither of them performed one.

Uh, no.

Enough of this self-congratulatory back patting; what I want to know is, how do you Yanks feel about a Canadian winning your National tournament?

I believe Rick is American, from North Carolina(?)....he actually came up, braved the frigid north stole the show at our Kingston Regional. So the better question is how to we feel about that?

I feel pretty good, congrats Rick!

Personally I wouldn't have let the OP fix his error, but at the same time if I weren't the opposing player for that game I wouldn't have cried about it.

All this worry about being perceived as a jerk if you don't allow someone to correct a mistake at this level of competition is baloney.

If you have personally experienced this, take a good hard look at yourself and how you behaved in that game. Maybe your opponent's view it has nothing at all to do with your uncompromising play.

I find it hard to accept that players at this level of competition would make the choice to allow a retroactive token placement out of some misguided, slightly paranoid fear of being judged poorly by the community at large for not doing so.

All this worry about being perceived as a jerk if you don't allow someone to correct a mistake at this level of competition is baloney.

Based on the posts I've seen on these forms, it's not. I've seen more then one person make the statement that if you don't let someone take back a mistake you're a "win at all costs jerk, who should be exiled from the community." Not everyone is that extreme but there are some that feel that way.

That said, the more common it becomes for people to expect a mulligan, the more people will be looked down for not offering one.

Failure to declare and token ACD in a series of steps is, to many people on this board (at least the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate), an administrative error when ACD is understood to be taken (such as when it has been taken every turn and no other option is likely to be taken). Also, we can use a different term than administrative, but the result is the same.

Again, this was not a mistake in the series of steps. The OP did not say "I'm cloaking" and forget to put the token next to the ship, they forgot about ACD entirely. This is a major strategy mistake, not a trivial error of not putting your cardboard in the right place.

We know that you object to it. My point is that the rest of us, in spite of you not understanding why, still think it is better to allow for a certain margin of error greater than yours. This in turn does create a social stigma when one fails to act so. It is the very nature of the social construct that is "manners" that this is the case.

I know that's how you think, and I'm tired of that kind of entitled attitude. Fixing a mistake should be considered a huge gift that you are not in any way entitled to expect, not a default state that is part of having "good manners".

Also, it is noted that your very statement is what many would refer to as WAAC.

Many people would call it that, but many people are also TFGs. Playing by the rules is not WAAC behavior, but you know what is? Expecting to be allowed to take back your mistakes. If the mistake isn't a big deal then why is it so important to fix it? Just "fly casual", accept that you lost a ship, and have fun with the rest of the game.

For others it seems to be winning alongside or even after having a completely positive social interaction.

I want a positive social interaction, which is why I oppose using "fly casual" to pressure people in to letting their opponents take back mistakes. Part of having a positive social interaction is just accepting the consequences of making a mistake and not putting your opponent in a situation where they have to feel like the bad guy if they don't let you get away with breaking the rules.

I fear someone has hijacked iPeregrine account, this can not be the same man that threatened to smash my ships if I requested him to follow the rules.

All this worry about being perceived as a jerk if you don't allow someone to correct a mistake at this level of competition is baloney.

Based on the posts I've seen on these forms, it's not. I've seen more then one person make the statement that if you don't let someone take back a mistake you're a "win at all costs jerk, who should be exiled from the community." Not everyone is that extreme but there are some that feel that way.

That said, the more common it becomes for people to expect a mulligan, the more people will be looked down for not offering one.

There are always outliers, especially on internet forums. By and large, especially in the high level competitive scene; it is my opinion that this expectation is not representative of even a significant minority of the players who participate.

My experience...

At a Local game store playing a Seasonal kit. I chose to play a Falcon based list. Its different for me because I usually play imperials. II get the bye in the first round. My next opponent tells me he doesn't like playing against the falcon and basically just mopes around until dead. Ok now onto the play for first.

My opponent is playing a 2 phantom list with an academy support. We get into it. 2nd turn he decloaks his echo and moves into range to kill some of my falcons support but right in their fire arc. He shoots with Whisper and I ask "any Triggers" wait some then ask again and a 3rd time. He doesn't declare ACD so I assume he isn't going to. I wouldn't considering Whisper was safe at the time. Next Comes Echo, he shoots and then I ask "any Triggers" again nothing but he then says its my ships to shoot. My support shoots at echo and suddenly he declares the ACD. I explained that technically its a missed opportunity and I did ask several times and then you did declare it was my ship to shoot. He starts bitching that he would have cloaked there was no reason not to. I yield, its only a shop tourney, top prize is a medal yay. He puts the tokens down and then I proceed to kill echo. He reaches across the table scowls goodgame at me and leaves.

Me I'm like wtf? I ask about what the issue is, I even confront him and ask if I offended him. He says if I don't know he aint telling me. I shrug. Claim my first place prize in one of the most unexciting play days ever. Later I find the group segregated there are those that scowl at me because I play to win and then another group that suggest those other players aren't playing serious enough and then being pissy because they lost.

Personally I don't get it. Even if I handicap myself I'm going to play to win, its the objective of the game. Why I should be hated for that by some is beyond me. I also wonder when I let them take back obvious things or even things that advantage them after giving them opportunity do they still scowl.

Now, with this case here, its nationals and premiere play. By default, if I gave you that opportunity to recloak and you didn't take it I'm not giving it to you. But, if there was a state of fast play I would let you have it. Without knowing what was happening and being a 3rd party I couldn't say exactly but if the opponent denied it or allowed it and you had fair chance then that's his choice. He lives with the consequences at the end of the game. If he denied you that fix and then won but knew that you should have had those tokens, his win would have been shallow. I would not like to win because of something that had no relation to the game skill.

Rick, it was an honor to meet you this weekend and watch you fly that list like a beast. I assure you I have zero issue with how things unfolded and anyone who really plays this game and is part of this great community understands the situation and has no problems with how it was handled. Class act by both you and Jeff. Take a deep breath and enjoy the victory. You earned it. Your play on Saturday was some of the best flying I've ever seen in this game. Again, great to meet you and hope to get the chance to play you at worlds in November. Congrats, man!!!

This I think defines the outcome perfectly... as far as the tool is concerned who felt the overwhelming need to chime in on someone elses game... snitches get stitches.

Personally I don't get it.

I don't get it either... You let him cloak when he clearly had no right to do so. You did everything you could short of saying "are you going to cloak?".

Then even after you let him, you still managed to blow up Echo... With what I assume was some good rolls on your part and bad on his. How that could be your fault in anyway is beyond me.

The fact that he actually expected you to allow him to fix his mistake, after 6 warnings, let him fix it anyway, and was nasty about it, is a perfect example of the worst kind of poor sportsmanship.

Amazing people can still find things to argue about then the OP and top tier players and even the guy who was freaking out all came together and behaved like complete gentlemen... Really impressed with everyone directly involved, that is great to hear and see! To anyone arguing, there is no right and wrong, you can be a stickler if you want, you can be casual if you want, better to know which you are and self-identify and simply acknowledge you see it differently and move forward on that basis right?

before the game advances in any way would you remind them or deliberately carry on knowing they've made a mistake?

I know it's aimed at him, but for me...

It depends. Is this the first mistake they made? Is this the world championship? Have they played strictly by the rules so far?

I fail to see why reminding someone to do something is my responsibility. Making mistakes is part of the game, and taking advantage of the mistakes the other person makes is also part of it. You are not playing someone "at their best" if you are helping them, you're playing them at a level above their best, and are quite simply giving them an unfair advantage.

Say you are playing against "Whisper" with ACD and you opponent shoots, you know they want to cloak but you can see they've forgotten, before the game advances in any way would you remind them or deliberately carry on knowing they've made a mistake?

I would let them make the mistake. And I disagree with your premise that I somehow know that they've forgotten. There are reasons to stay uncloaked even when you have ACD, so how exactly is it that I know they're making a mistake and not a deliberate choice to stay uncloaked? It's not my job to stop my opponent from using a bad strategy.

It's not my job to stop my opponent from using a bad strategy.

By that logic I owe it to him to point out when he's going to take a shot at a less then ideal target.

Even if we assume you knew they made a mistake, I still don't owe it to my opponent to fix his mistakes.

I'm sure it's been very well covered by now, but I wish someone had quoted this early on rather than page eight, so there's less temptation to lay blame.

Missed Opportunities

Players are expected to play optimally, remembering to perform actions and

use card effects when indicated. If a player forgets to use an effect during

the timing specified by that effect, he cannot retroactively use it without the

consent of his opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not

intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed

opportunity.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/X-Wing-Epic-Tournament-Rules.pdf