Last night I was refereeing an X-Wing tournament. One of the players had an A-Wing with Proton Rockets. When he used them, he didn't remove the Focus token from from his ship. When I pointed this out, he and his opponent said that you don't use the Focus token to make the attack, you just have to have a Focus token on your ship and that it's not spent when making the attack. I overruled him, because you have to spend a Focus token to use a Blaster Turret.

So, who's right? Do you have to spend the Focus token to use Proton Rockets, or do you just have to have a Focus token on your ship?

Attack (Focus): means you have to have the token to make the attack.

If you have to discard the token, it will tell you in the text. There's nothing inherent about discarding the token to attack. Compare Proton Torpedo and Assault Missile (that tell you to discard) to Proton Rocket, Homing Missile, and Ion Pulse Missile, which don't.

Sorry to say it, but you got this one wrong

I'm just curious, if neither player asked for you to make a ruling to settle a dispute, why did you interrupt the game? In my limited experience, TOs don't get involved unless there is a dispute.

Also worth noting: compare Proton Rockets to Proton Torpedoes. The Proton Torpedo card has the "Attack (target lock):" header and specifically says to spend the target lock and discard the card to perform the attack.

The Proton Rockets only requires you to discard the card to perform the attack, not spend the token, so it should have been available for modifying the attack if needed.

In your comparison, the Blaster Turret specifically tells you to spend a focus token, the Proton rockets don't mention it. A similar comparison can be made between most missiles(eg concussion missiles) and homing missiles.

I'm just curious, if neither player asked for you to make a ruling to settle a dispute, why did you interrupt the game? In my limited experience, TOs don't get involved unless there is a dispute.

So if a TO sees something that is absolutely being done incorrectly by a player, they shouldn't correct that player if an opponent doesn't say something???

That opens a can of worms....

The problem is the TO quite correctly intervened as he thought something was wrong. The only problem it was the TO that was wrong.

When you're a TO, you've got to be 100% certain before making a ruling. My advice would have been to ask the players if what they were doing was correct. Listen to both sides of the argument, and make a logical ruling based on fact.

In this case above, the OP made a ruling based on an assumption that Proton Rockets worked the same as a Blaster Turret, probably because they both have the "Attack (focus):" header, which he's now found out was an error. The bottom line is read the card, and try not to apply another card as a precedent, especially when its wording is different.

As a TO I generally only intervene if it appears as though someone is attempting to abuse the rules to gain an advantage (aka cheating). Past that if someone forgets to take an action or spend a token I usually keep it to myself.

As a TO I generally only intervene if it appears as though someone is attempting to abuse the rules to gain an advantage (aka cheating). Past that if someone forgets to take an action or spend a token I usually keep it to myself.

Which is exactly what a TO should be doing. And any spectators for that matter. There's nothing more annoying than being in the middle of a game and some clown starts making comments or suggestions from the sidelines. A TO should be there to adjudicate any disputes, and should be lurking in the background the rest of the time.

@Keiththegamergeek: Please don't take this a shot you, because I think you were acting because you thought there was an issue, which is fine. I've had many games where I've made a move and some idiot (not involved in the game) has stood there and said "you should've done this instead" or "I wouldn't have done that". It's those idiots that make you angry.

@Keiththegamergeek: Please don't take this a shot you, because I think you were acting because you thought there was an issue, which is fine. I've had many games where I've made a move and some idiot (not involved in the game) has stood there and said "you should've done this instead" or "I wouldn't have done that". It's those idiots that make you angry.

I think it's important that we make a distinction here between giving play advice and pointing out illegal plays. The first should be off-limits in an event - period. The second is dicier.

When I run events I don't like to get involved in games, but I'm not sure "Nobody asked you" is a valid reason for a TO to let illegal plays continue uncorrected. At the very least, there shouldn't be anything wrong with correcting innocent mistakes. At worst, it could easily be a case where an experienced player is taking advantage of someone by exploiting their ignorance. If Player A is basically cheating, and Player B never asks the TO because he doesn't know about the rule, should the TO just let that go?

The first line of responsibility does belong with the players, but if a TO sees something being done wrong, I do believe they're well within their bounds to correct that whether anyone asks them or not. We can break down all the situations, but there really aren't any cases where someone who's hurt by playing right has much of a leg to stand on.

There's always the potential for a TO to be wrong, as in this case, but I don't think that affects the question of whether or not a TO should get involved. We make a baseline assumption that TOs know what they're doing, and grant them power appropriate for that. Some times they'll make mistakes, but that shouldn't really influence the question of what their responsibilities are.

@Keiththegamergeek: Please don't take this a shot you, because I think you were acting because you thought there was an issue, which is fine. I've had many games where I've made a move and some idiot (not involved in the game) has stood there and said "you should've done this instead" or "I wouldn't have done that". It's those idiots that make you angry.

I think it's important that we make a distinction here between giving play advice and pointing out illegal plays. The first should be off-limits in an event - period. The second is dicier.

When I run events I don't like to get involved in games, but I'm not sure "Nobody asked you" is a valid reason for a TO to let illegal plays continue uncorrected. At the very least, there shouldn't be anything wrong with correcting innocent mistakes. At worst, it could easily be a case where an experienced player is taking advantage of someone by exploiting their ignorance. If Player A is basically cheating, and Player B never asks the TO because he doesn't know about the rule, should the TO just let that go?

The first line of responsibility does belong with the players, but if a TO sees something being done wrong, I do believe they're well within their bounds to correct that whether anyone asks them or not. We can break down all the situations, but there really aren't any cases where someone who's hurt by playing right has much of a leg to stand on.

There's always the potential for a TO to be wrong, as in this case, but I don't think that affects the question of whether or not a TO should get involved. We make a baseline assumption that TOs know what they're doing, and grant them power appropriate for that. Some times they'll make mistakes, but that shouldn't really influence the question of what their responsibilities are.

Exactly!!

@Keiththegamergeek: Please don't take this a shot you, because I think you were acting because you thought there was an issue, which is fine. I've had many games where I've made a move and some idiot (not involved in the game) has stood there and said "you should've done this instead" or "I wouldn't have done that". It's those idiots that make you angry.

I think it's important that we make a distinction here between giving play advice and pointing out illegal plays. The first should be off-limits in an event - period. The second is dicier.

When I run events I don't like to get involved in games, but I'm not sure "Nobody asked you" is a valid reason for a TO to let illegal plays continue uncorrected. At the very least, there shouldn't be anything wrong with correcting innocent mistakes. At worst, it could easily be a case where an experienced player is taking advantage of someone by exploiting their ignorance. If Player A is basically cheating, and Player B never asks the TO because he doesn't know about the rule, should the TO just let that go?

The first line of responsibility does belong with the players, but if a TO sees something being done wrong, I do believe they're well within their bounds to correct that whether anyone asks them or not. We can break down all the situations, but there really aren't any cases where someone who's hurt by playing right has much of a leg to stand on.

There's always the potential for a TO to be wrong, as in this case, but I don't think that affects the question of whether or not a TO should get involved. We make a baseline assumption that TOs know what they're doing, and grant them power appropriate for that. Some times they'll make mistakes, but that shouldn't really influence the question of what their responsibilities are.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you entirely. I think the TO should intervene if he sees something incorrect or dubious. It's when you've got some armchair general, who's not involved with the game or tournament, other than as a spectator, that grills my beans. It's those "helpful" snippets of strategy and what they would've done that you just don't need when you're playing. I think the TO should be lurking in the background, observing, and making input when required. And that requirement is from either his judgement, or the players.

At our local wargaming club, that's our number one rule - you don't comment on, or interrupt someone else's game. It's just damned poor etiquette. The only exception would be someone umpiring a competition, such as a TO.

When I was asked to judge for an event (for different game) I was explicitly told to not interrupt a game unless asked by a participant. That the point is to have fun and as long as both players are happy and enjoying the game a judge should not butt-in, it just causes too much of a hassle.

it just causes too much of a hassle.

I think this just begs for someone to be taken advantage of. If you see someone doing something that is clearly wrong, and the other guy doesn't call him on it. It may be just because they don't know it's wrong.

There is a point of judgement calls, that the TO shouldn't get involved in. Lets say someone sets a dial to left bank, but meant right, and left takes them off the table. Technically/RAW the other player can't let him fix that mistake. There is nothing in the missed opportunities section about letting someone fix a dial.

Any number of people will do it anyway because they think that makes for a cheap win. In that case, the TO should not IMO anyway get involved.

But that's not the same thing as someone firing an Assault Missile and using the TL to re-roll dice, because the other guy doesn't know that firing the missile means spending the TL and so you don't have it any longer. It's not an uncommon question around here, so clearly there's some people who don't know that you can't use the TL.

Now it could be that neither player didn't know, or it could be the attacking player is trying to take advantage of a newbie. Either way in that case the TO should step in and correct the situation.

When I was asked to judge for an event (for different game) I was explicitly told to not interrupt a game unless asked by a participant. That the point is to have fun and as long as both players are happy and enjoying the game a judge should not butt-in, it just causes too much of a hassle.

Why is it a hassle? It should only cause even the slightest issue if someone gets upset at losing an advantage they had when they were making illegal plays.

It's all well and good to say "Don't get involved as long as they're having fun", but this is still a competitive event. What players do in their game does affect other people, especially in the current tournament structure. My first Vassal tournament I faced a dual Falcon list who screwed up and bumped his own ship off the board very early. I might say "Eh, winning like that isn't much fun, just leave it on the board." I, as a player, am not within the rules to do that, even though it seems a nice enough thing to do. But that MoV difference can affect more than me - I may have just put this opponent into the elimination rounds while costing the guy at the next table his shot.

So I disagree with Vanor's example a bit, but understand his point. We tend to prioritize sportsmanship in the game we're actually playing, without a larger sense of impact for the overall event. But often going outside the rules to be generous to your current opponent means screwing other people in the tournament by giving your opponent points he shouldn't have. Part of the TO's job is making sure everyone's on a level playing field.

Why is it a hassle?

It's a hassle because you are it erupting the flow of the game and having to take time explaining the rules to people who didn't want you to. Do keep in mind, like I said above, that this was for a different game than X-wing (war of the ring), which has a much more complicated and less well written set of rules. Interrupting peoples games every 10 minutes in order to take 5 minutes to explain how the rules ACTUALLY work, would be a serious hassle. So I was told to that, as a judge, I should not interfere unless a player requests it.

So I disagree with Vanor's example a bit, but understand his point.

You do make a good point that letting someone do that does have a bigger effect than just the game. So perhaps the TO should get involved. But we're still talking about a judgement call, vs a clear out and out breaking of the rules.

When I was asked to judge for an event (for different game) I was explicitly told to not interrupt a game unless asked by a participant. That the point is to have fun and as long as both players are happy and enjoying the game a judge should not butt-in, it just causes too much of a hassle.

Why is it a hassle? It should only cause even the slightest issue if someone gets upset at losing an advantage they had when they were making illegal plays.

It's all well and good to say "Don't get involved as long as they're having fun", but this is still a competitive event. What players do in their game does affect other people, especially in the current tournament structure. My first Vassal tournament I faced a dual Falcon list who screwed up and bumped his own ship off the board very early. I might say "Eh, winning like that isn't much fun, just leave it on the board." I, as a player, am not within the rules to do that, even though it seems a nice enough thing to do. But that MoV difference can affect more than me - I may have just put this opponent into the elimination rounds while costing the guy at the next table his shot.

So I disagree with Vanor's example a bit, but understand his point. We tend to prioritize sportsmanship in the game we're actually playing, without a larger sense of impact for the overall event. But often going outside the rules to be generous to your current opponent means screwing other people in the tournament by giving your opponent points he shouldn't have. Part of the TO's job is making sure everyone's on a level playing field.

Except in this case we have the OP saying both the player and his opponent understood and agreed on the ruling.

In my opinion a TO has the responsibility to raise a rules issue. If both players decide to ignore the issue raised by the TO and come to some other resolution that is their right. A TO should only overrule if the players can't agree on a ruling.

For example if both players agree to allow swarms to move as one (if they perform the same manoeuvre) and then perform actions (say focus) in one go, they can decide that.

If a mistake is made, the TO should merely adjudicate for players who are in disagreement. If both players can agree a solution acceptable to both (even after the applicable rule has been explained by the TO) they can play that way. This might happen if, say, both players are new and have been cancelling {crits} before {hits}. They may agree to play the same way for the remainder of the match to make it fair.

In my opinion a TO has the responsibility to raise a rules issue. If both players decide to ignore the issue raised by the TO and come to some other resolution that is their right. A TO should only overrule if the players can't agree on a ruling.

For example if both players agree to allow swarms to move as one (if they perform the same manoeuvre) and then perform actions (say focus) in one go, they can decide that.

And if both players decide to play without asteroids? Or that they'll report whatever they want for the score because they're buddies and want to maximize their MoV?

There is, as Vanor says, certainly a judgement call on when a TO should get involved. If players agree to shorthands to speed up a game, fine. But the idea that players can do anything they want in a game and the TO has absolutely no say over it unless they want him to is ludicrous.

In my opinion a TO has the responsibility to raise a rules issue. If both players decide to ignore the issue raised by the TO and come to some other resolution that is their right. A TO should only overrule if the players can't agree on a ruling.

For example if both players agree to allow swarms to move as one (if they perform the same manoeuvre) and then perform actions (say focus) in one go, they can decide that.

And if both players decide to play without asteroids? Or that they'll report whatever they want for the score because they're buddies and want to maximize their MoV?

There is, as Vanor says, certainly a judgement call on when a TO should get involved. If players agree to shorthands to speed up a game, fine. But the idea that players can do anything they want in a game and the TO has absolutely no say over it unless they want him to is ludicrous.

If both players agreed to play without asteroids then that is their choice. It may or not be a mistake, but once the game has started how would you fix the situation without restarting? (which may not be feasible).

I suppose the TO could disqualify both players. But to reach in and place asteroids on the field would be wrong.

So yes there is a some level of judgement involved. As there is in any situation. However, in the VAST majority of rules situations, the TO should not overrule the players unless they can't agree.

Clearly outright cheating, by say, allowing a friend a maximum MOV victory by running all your ships off the board, or reporting incorrect MOV numbers the TO can overrule.

If both players agreed to play without asteroids then that is their choice.

No it actually isn't their choice. They didn't set the game up correctly and are not playing by the rules. It's no different than the two players deciding that they can take actions even when stressed...

The rule aren't subject to agreement, they're the rules and must be followed in a tournament. To do otherwise taints the whole event for everyone, because you now have some people not playing the same game as everyone else.

Clearly outright cheating

It doesn't have to outright cheating, because anything that causes them to play by a different set of rules affects the whole event.

Using shortcuts like moving all your Ties at the same time isn't going to affect the whole event, but not playing with Asteroids will, because the MoV and winner is likely to be different then it would otherwise be.

Ultimately the main purpose of the TO is to make sure everyone is playing the same game, by the same rules, so everything is as fair as it can be.

If both players agreed to play without asteroids then that is their choice.

No, it's really not.

The rules for an event are baselined by FFG, and modified by the TO as needed for the event. That covers the game rules themselves, and the tournament rules as well. There is some reasonable leeway in there, but that leeway is granted entirely by the TO. Players are expected to abide by the rules, consistently and comprehensively.

If players in my event willfully broke the rules, I'd give them both losses and zero them for the round. Agreeing to cheat is still cheating. If it were actually accidental, I hope I'd catch it before it became an issue, as I usually walk around and watch games setting up, and even playing. If not me, then someone at the next table over would go "Hey, where are your rocks?"

If it's mid-game, then I'd correct it as best I could. There was an instance at a store championship where a table was using custom 3D rocks with 1" rounds for the bases, rather than the templates. The TO caught it, had them put the templates under. Easy fix. In your scenario, I'd place them in as neutral a manner as I could, but I'd try and correct it going forward. I won't generally try and rewind - you can't reasonably do that even in a friendly game, much less a timed event... but you can at least ensure the game is as clean as possible going forward.

Clearly outright cheating

It doesn't have to outright cheating, because anything that causes them to play by a different set of rules affects the whole event.

Using shortcuts like moving all your Ties at the same time isn't going to affect the whole event, but not playing with Asteroids will, because the MoV and winner is likely to be different then it would otherwise be.

Ultimately the main purpose of the TO is to make sure everyone is playing the same game, by the same rules, so everything is as fair as it can be.

So there is clearly a difference between outright cheating and shortcuts...

Now what about a situation where players make a mistake early on, say, not spending a target lock to fire an assault missile. Later in the game the other player fires an assault missile, both players can agree, that in order to be fair, the second player need not spend the target lock. As a TO that is clearly completely wrong. The rules are very clear on spending of a target lock. Yet both players can agree to overrule the rule in the interests of fairness. Should the TO intervene?

What about when measuring arc? If both players agree a target is in arc and the TO disagrees, what then?

What about if both players have been allowing Wedge to reduce the number of defence dice his target rolls including removing the extra die for range/obstruction? That is clearly wrong and yet both players might allow the mistake to continue rather than have the ruling affect one player more than another...

The TO is there to make the game (and tournament) fair, not for anything else. If the players involved in a game believe the match is fair what makes the TO believe they know more and thus should overrule them? (and yes they have the right, but does that mean they /should/ use it?).

Yet both players can agree to overrule the rule in the interests of fairness. Should the TO intervene?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone made a mistake either for or against their favor, doesn't mean that you should keep repeating the same mistake.

What about when measuring arc? If both players agree a target is in arc and the TO disagrees, what then?

Depends on if it's a judgement call or not. If it's really questionable then the players should decide. But if it's clearly out of arc, then no it doesn't matter what the players say because they're no longer playing by the rules.

(and yes they have the right, but does that mean they /should/ use it?).

It depends on the effect it has on the tournament as a whole. If it looks like what ever the players are doing is going to affect MoV and win/loss, then yes the TO not only should, but needs to get involved, because that now affects everyone and not just that one game.

But it also is a huge judgement call by the TO. Can they correct the situation in a way that doesn't further taint the tournament? The TO has the final say on what is or isn't fair, and as the TO has the responsibility to make sure everyone is playing fairly, which means they must overrule the players if needed, because the players aren't the one responsible for the event, the TO is.

Now what about a situation where players make a mistake early on, say, not spending a target lock to fire an assault missile. Later in the game the other player fires an assault missile, both players can agree, that in order to be fair, the second player need not spend the target lock. As a TO that is clearly completely wrong. The rules are very clear on spending of a target lock. Yet both players can agree to overrule the rule in the interests of fairness. Should the TO intervene?

How far would you take this? What if I don't happen to have an Assault Missile? Would you let me use Han's reroll ability and a target lock on the same dice, in the interest of fairness? What about spending a focus token I don't have? Which rules can I break in the interest of fixing a mutual mistake? If we realize it after the game, can we just decide what the outcome should have been?

So no - both players cannot agree to willingly and knowingly cheat, even if they think cheating is fair. If you figure out mid-game that you've been doing something wrong, you suck it up and play it right from that point forward. Continuing to cheat is not "fair".

The TO is there to make the game (and tournament) fair, not for anything else. If the players involved in a game believe the match is fair what makes the TO believe they know more and thus should overrule them? (and yes they have the right, but does that mean they /should/ use it?).

Being a TO is about more than just keeping score while people play their games. They're responsible for ensuring the overall integrity of the event. That's not the same thing as being "fair". If two players are knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules, then it's not just a judgement call for whether the TO should intervene - they have an affirmative responsibility to do so to protect the integrity of the event. That means that players play by the rules whether they want to or not.