Not cheating, but being a four letter word, yes.

I would say a*hole if it was casual play. But tournement, you better know your ships and abilities.

Yeah, I could see that in a tourney, but I would still let him cloak. Who is not going to cloak w/ ACD after they fire? Its almost an automatic thing for me. I even let people do an action if they forgot it after they moved, but before the activiation phase officially ends. Now if we are in the combat phase and he's like "I would have focused with such and such." I tend to draw the line and say better do it next time.

Sounds to me like they were both being dicks.

To me a missed Cloak token is very forgivable. I don't fly phantoms much, fly against them a lot. My assumption is that (generally they all have ACD) they are cloaking after they attack. When I attack them I'm going to give them the opportunity to roll 4 dice (unless I attack before they attack), regardless of a token, assuming they would have been able to cloak. I would much rather win because we both played a good game, not because of some technical missed procedural detail that's safe to assume.

This happend in a tourney I was at recently.

Player A is flying echo with acd. After decloaking and finishing his maneuver he leaves cloak token on table about 10 inches away from echo

Player B insists he remove from table altogether.

Player A complies with demand

After resolving Echos attack player a declares recloak but neglects to put token back by ship.

Player B then declares that echo is uncloaked as no token is on him.

In my mind Player B is essentially cheating by creating a situation that benefits him through means other than play. What's your opinion?

...

I'm sad that I share the same planet as people like B. Is Mars One still looking for astronauts?

ITT: asking your opponent to abide by the rules of the game makes you a bad person.

So you should let your opponent not abide by the rules?

Based on the (admittedly vague) description by the OP, I'm going to assume a couple things:

1) There was no dispute by either player that the Cloak action was declared.

2) The only dispute was whether--sans token--the declared action 'counts.'

As to how I'd deal with it? If I was player A, and it was simply a store tournament, I'd just concede the game. If it was a Store Championship / Regional / etc? I'd ask a TO for a ruling, and fly to the letter of the law from there on out.

As to how I'd deal with it? If I was player A, and it was simply a store tournament, I'd just concede the game. If it was a Store Championship / Regional / etc? I'd ask a TO for a ruling, and fly to the letter of the law from there on out.

The proper way to deal with it is for player B to call over a TO if player A is insistent about using the token he failed to place, and the TO then allowing player A to use the token and issuing him a warning.

I fail to see how this is remotely close to cheating. It might be wielding the rules with a heavy hand, but we don't know if Player A had been leaving tokens on the board causing confusion up to this point, and Player B had had enough of it.

I really can't stand the automatic leap from "Player asks tournament game be played by the rules" to "Player is a fun-hating jerk." Happens WAY too frequently around here.

I'm going to assume a couple things:

You can't really assume either of those things based on the story we've been given.

In games, as in youth sports, as in life, there is a certain minimum level of sportsmanship, honesty, and integrity that people should display towards one another. The world would be a lot better place.

This situation all depends on whether or not Player B knew if the ship was cloaked or not. Also, I find no fault with Player B demanding an uncluttered playing surface. I try and do the same in casual games. You can't have lots of unclaimed tokens floating about because it can muddy the game.

If Player B knew that Player A cloaked their ship, then Player B, while being wholly correct in their "no token, no dice" stance, is being a ******. There is a difference between being right and doing the right thing. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to allow the cloak. However, if Player B honestly did not know, then he has every right to not allow the cloak. But, again, the gentlemanly stance would be to allow the cloak by assuming that you opponent is not lying and either allow it or dice it off.

Then again, maybe I am a softy. I would rather lose with honor than win by cheating. This is not life or death, this is a game. I put my belief in the Dice Gods to punish the cheaters.

If a player executes a red maneuver, and I insist that he place a stress token, does that mean I was trying to trick my opponent if he accidentally chooses another red maneuver on the next turn?

If my opponent is used to placing his dials on the ship cards, and I ask him to place them near the actual ships, does that mean I was trying to trick my opponent if he accidentally places them by the wrong one?

As to how I'd deal with it? If I was player A, and it was simply a store tournament, I'd just concede the game. If it was a Store Championship / Regional / etc? I'd ask a TO for a ruling, and fly to the letter of the law from there on out.

The proper way to deal with it is for player B to call over a TO if player A is insistent about using the token he failed to place, and the TO then allowing player A to use the token and issuing him a warning.

Again, my assumption is that there was no dispute over whether the action was declared.

The way the OP painted the scenario, player B comes across as "A-ha! Yes, you declared the cloak--but you forgot to place the token! Neener-neener-neener, your cloak doesn't count!"

In that situation, I'd rather concede and enjoy a beer while I wait for the next round (my flgs has a bar).

Now, if player A was just consistently sloppy... as player B, I'd say something like, "hey, man... I'm all for Fly Casual, but since this is a tournament, I'd like to follow the tournament rules for tokens, etc." At that point, if player A continued to play sloppy / forget actions / etc, I would no longer be lenient.

The difference, IMO, is that one scenario includes a jackass and the other scenario includes someone who is perhaps not ready for competitive play.

It's not cheating, but it does suck.

Tokens...

F'ing use them correctly - placed on, touching or as close as possible to the ship's base.

How hard is that?

Really what's the best way to remember to cloak?

I have a token that flips and one side says cloaked. Other side says ready to cloak. . Much easier.

I've also been fancying something like punch a hole through the token so I can place a string on it and then hanging it on the phantoms wing so I don't forget.

That or sharpie-ing one side of the cloak token to red for decloaked.

Really what's the best way to remember to cloak?

I have a token that flips and one side says cloaked. Other side says ready to cloak. . Much easier.

I've also been fancying something like punch a hole through the token so I can place a string on it and then hanging it on the phantoms wing so I don't forget.

That or sharpie-ing one side of the cloak token to red for decloaked.

I'd like to cast a Phantom in clear resin and just swap it out, as appropriate.

Again, my assumption is that there was no dispute over whether the action was declared.

The way the OP painted the scenario, player B comes across as "A-ha! Yes, you declared the cloak--but you forgot to place the token! Neener-neener-neener, your cloak doesn't count!"

In that situation, I'd rather concede and enjoy a beer while I wait for the next round (my flgs has a bar).

Now, if player A was just consistently sloppy... as player B, I'd say something like, "hey, man... I'm all for Fly Casual, but since this is a tournament, I'd like to follow the tournament rules for tokens, etc." At that point, if player A continued to play sloppy / forget actions / etc, I would no longer be lenient.

The difference, IMO, is that one scenario includes a jackass and the other scenario includes someone who is perhaps not ready for competitive play.

And I also made that assumption, which means player A was indisputably at fault for not placing the token. Since player B acknowledged that it was declared, player A then gets the benefit of the token, but not without a warning for failing to follow the rules of the game.

Come to think of it, since player B acknowledges that it was declared in the first place - and the placing of the token itself is not a 'may' ability - he should also receive a warning for failing to remind his opponent. Keeping track of the board state is both player's responsibility, and intentionally failing to do so for some perceived benefit is most definitely cheating. The problem is proving that player B did it on purpose, and didn't also forget himself.

Well played, sir. Well played.

Okay so here is my take, assuming everything happened as the OP stated.

If I was Player B, I would let the player put the cloak token on his ship. Moreso, if he forgot to place the token, I would remind him to do so right then and there when he says it. Not reminding them to place the token when they said I cloak is just as much a failure on my part as it is on theirs. If someone says Focus and puts down two tokens, I call them on that. If someone says focus and doesn't put any on the board, I also call them on that. On top of that there is zero reason to not cloak after their attack, I will ask them if they intend to recloak. I also remind players to take actions when they tell me to go, saying, "don't you want to take an action 1st". I also remind players that I still get an action and they should hold on until after I declare it before starting phase three. This is what I believe is referred to by sportsmanship.

If I was Player A and was in casual play, I would make a case that what Player B was saying was unfair since they are clearly a friend of mine. If I was in a tourney, I would just walk away from the table saying I am done as the person is unreasonable and I don't play leisure games for fun with unreasonable people. Life is to short.

If he heard Player A declare the re-cloak, Player B was a tool.

That's just it, we have no way of knowing if B heard or not, and we shouldn't assume he did and was just trying to pull one over.

Player A needs to place his tokens, and Player B needs to not be a jerk and violate the spirit of the event.

Again, how do we know that's what was going on? You're assuming Player B is being a jerk and violating the spirit of the event, with no evidence to go on. If you were the TO, you'd at least be able to hear both sides of the story, rather then what we have here.

This community seems to have a pretty mccarthyism like response to poor sportsmanship. We have people who have declared guilt based on a 3rd hand account of an event that none of us were at. I mean we don't even have Player A posting a story about what happens. All it takes is an accusation and it seems like a lot of people are ready to get out the tar and feathers.

My post included qualifiers to cover what you are objecting to. There are basically two ways the OP scenario would shake out when I (as TO) went over to the players to talk to them about it:

1) Player B heard the action declaration, and I give the two warnings I said I would give.

2) Player B says he didn't hear the action declaration. In this case I warn Player A as before, and I warn Player B to pay attention to what his opponent is doing.

Don't add to the scenario as given. If I were the TO and came up to the two players and they laid out the scenario as described, it would be clear to me that Player B was trying to weasel his way into an advantage. If he didn't hear the action declaration, he would mention that. It's not different than Player B trying to rush Player A in order to get him to make a mistake (something that is clearly against the rules). Don't say "but what if Player A had been forgetting to set tokens all game?" or "but what if Player B didn't hear?" Those are different parameters than we have been given with the OP. What if Player B didn't hear the action declaration because he was talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone instead of paying attention to the game? Don't assume there is more to the story.

I'm assuming this is a theoretical exercise. If it's a real life situation and the real "Player B" comes in to give his side, then I would add that to the OP to determine what I might do. I'm pretty sure I'm giving both players a warning though.

If I was Player A and was in casual play, I would make a case that what Player B was saying was unfair since they are clearly a friend of mine. If I was in a tourney, I would just walk away from the table saying I am done as the person is unreasonable and I don't play leisure games for fun with unreasonable people. Life is to short.

Out of curiosity: shouldn't this be the other way around? ie. wouldn't one be more willing to walk away from a casual game with no stakes, rather than one at a tournament you (presumably) paid to enter?

Again, my assumption is that there was no dispute over whether the action was declared.

The way the OP painted the scenario, player B comes across as "A-ha! Yes, you declared the cloak--but you forgot to place the token! Neener-neener-neener, your cloak doesn't count!"

In that situation, I'd rather concede and enjoy a beer while I wait for the next round (my flgs has a bar).

Now, if player A was just consistently sloppy... as player B, I'd say something like, "hey, man... I'm all for Fly Casual, but since this is a tournament, I'd like to follow the tournament rules for tokens, etc." At that point, if player A continued to play sloppy / forget actions / etc, I would no longer be lenient.

The difference, IMO, is that one scenario includes a jackass and the other scenario includes someone who is perhaps not ready for competitive play.

And I also made that assumption, which means player A was indisputably at fault for not placing the token. Since player B acknowledged that it was declared, player A then gets the benefit of the token, but not without a warning for failing to follow the rules of the game.

Come to think of it, since player B acknowledges that it was declared in the first place - and the placing of the token itself is not a 'may' ability - he should also receive a warning for failing to remind his opponent. Keeping track of the board state is both player's responsibility, and intentionally failing to do so for some perceived benefit is most definitely cheating. The problem is proving that player B did it on purpose, and didn't also forget himself.

^

ZOING! Nailed it!

Ok a little more info. Player a pointed out when asked to remove the token that he was going to recloak after firing. Playber B repeated his demand that the token be removed. Player B claimed he never heard player A say he cloaked. Also player b used some real weird slow play tactics. Like going all the way down to player A's deployment Zone before k turning ( they were setup on opposite sides of board)

Uh oh, here we go again. That's not slow play, that's just play. Forcing your opponent to come at you through the asteroids is beyond legitimate, it's just plain smart. Now if player B walked all the way to the bathroom before K-turning, that would be slow play.

- There is a legitimate demand to remove the cloak token: if a cloak token is present, a ship cannot fire. If a player is absent minded, he might realize only too late that "oh right, the ship can fire!"

- Some conditions can prevent a ship from recloaking: stress is one of them, so again, a legitimate reason to remove the cloak token.

- Even with the advanced cloaking device, there might be a legitimate reason not to recloak (being too close to the border and with an asteroid blocking a decloak could be one of them).

Not saying that nothing shifty was done, but just pointing out that following the proper sequence of play not only makes the game cleaner and more fun, but also opens up strategic possibilities and such