There is absolutely no in-game reason not to take the free 'evade'.

What about being stressed?

On the issue at hand, while you can't expect your opponent to let you do the takeback, if you are the opponent I can't see any reason to refuse beyond being a hardcore Spike.

There are situations where the presence or abscense of an evade token could affect an opponent's targeting priority. You could be in the presence of 2 VT-49s, but shy away from the one carrying the rebel captive and target the one with Ysanne, having forgotten about the evade token (because this would be the first round it came into play, for example). If, halfway through the attack, the player remembers the evade token and wants to make it reappear, what is to say that the opponenet would not have targeted the other VT-49 instead (and taken the stress)?

Well obviously if they've just done a takeback they're in no place to force you to proceed with your initial target.

I'm planning to beat them by having a better list, or flying my ships better, not because my memory is working really well that day.

That's fine.

But it becomes an issue when people both expect to be reminded of things they forgot and expecting to be able to fix their mistakes. it's also an issue when people start making moral or ethical judgements about people who don't play the same way they do.

Myself if I forget something, I'd rather lose fairly than win because someone else let me, by letting me fix a mistake I made.

I find it interesting that people are trying to pass this off as nothing more than a memory issue. As if considering your options and what you can and can't do has nothing to with being the better player.

I find it interesting that people are trying to pass this off as nothing more than a memory issue. As if considering your options and what you can and can't do has nothing to with being the better player.

But not putting down an evade token by Isard when it applies is not a "considering your option and what you can and can't do" thing - it IS a memory issue, and nothing else, as there is absolutely never any reason that you'd be ABLE to put that evade token down and choose NOT to.

Certainly, in cases where a player has a decision to make, then taking one choice over another is not really a place you could point to as a 'memory issue' - it's a decision, and if they didn't factor in other things they probably should have...well, that would be unfortunate, but is what it is.

For something like this, when there is no possibility they would NOT do it, you can hardly argue it is anything BUT trying to 'WAAC' by exploiting someone's faulty memory or haste. Neither of which is part of the game.

Exactly. Remembering things is a key part of concocting and executing a plan, which is a big part of the game, isn't it?

I find it interesting that people are trying to pass this off as nothing more than a memory issue. As if considering your options and what you can and can't do has nothing to with being the better player.

But not putting down an evade token by Isard when it applies is not a "considering your option and what you can and can't do" thing - it IS a memory issue, and nothing else, as there is absolutely never any reason that you'd be ABLE to put that evade token down and choose NOT to.

Certainly, in cases where a player has a decision to make, then taking one choice over another is not really a place you could point to as a 'memory issue' - it's a decision, and if they didn't factor in other things they probably should have...well, that would be unfortunate, but is what it is.

For something like this, when there is no possibility they would NOT do it, you can hardly argue it is anything BUT trying to 'WAAC' by exploiting someone's faulty memory or haste. Neither of which is part of the game.

But like was mentioned earlier - the presence of that evade token would play into both players plans.

If you didn't put the token down, you didn't put the token down.

No takebacks at a tournament, only in a friendly game.

If we're getting into "Why would a player ever NOT do this thing" territory, why do we have rules for flying off the board or choosing a red maneuver when stressed? Aren't those simply matters of memory, of remembering you can't do those things? I mean, who would ever do those things on purpose?

as there is absolutely never any reason that you'd be ABLE to put that evade token down and choose NOT to.

So? that doesn't change the fact that it's still an optional ability. If you can't be bothered to keep track of what your options are, that's your fault not mine. Not paying attention to what you're doing or what options you have is poor play, pure and simple.

Neither of which is part of the game.

Yes in fact it is. Or do we start to let everyone fix every mistake they made because "well I forgot to barrel roll out of your arc"?

In fact the true WAAC here seems to be the people who insist that they should be allowed to cheat by taking an action they didn't take when they had the chance. The rules are quite clear about these things.

I mean, once your ship has lost its shields and has damage...why would a player ever NOT take the 'free evade' action? It literally costs nothing to do - no opportunity cost or anything at all. There is absolutely no in-game reason not to take the free 'evade'.

And Ysanne Isard eats up 4 points, so it's a safe bet someone bringing her along is doing so because they want free evades, not just to spend points for the heck of it.

Yet, somehow, in the very near future, I can see another match starting a heated argument over whether or not the ship with Isard on it had taken an evade action when the player owning it forgot to put the token down...

And this requires a Ribann-esque thread, whose whole point seems to be to incite a fight between these two types of players on this forum? I don't see the how this is a problem, unless you want to call out FFG for making these types of cards, because you fear this "conflict", even though this thread is all about inciting the "two groups".

Anyway, have fun with the thread. I'm sure some amusement can happen when it degrades...

If we're getting into "Why would a player ever NOT do this thing" territory, why do we have rules for flying off the board or choosing a red maneuver when stressed? Aren't those simply matters of memory, of remembering you can't do those things? I mean, who would ever do those things on purpose?

It depends. If someone has their ship right on the left edge of the board, and chooses a hard-2-left that flies them immediately straight off the board, it's pretty obvious they didn't intend to do that and I would usually let them correct the mistake (that is, use the exact opposite maneuver that keeps them on the board).

If someone is attempting to do a bank that skirts the edge of the board, and misjudges distance and flies off it...sorry, that's just being outflown. You did what you intended to do, and it just didn't work.

And that's really how I see the WAAC vs 'fly casual' distinction. If you are trying to win by exploiting obviously accidental events, you are playing WAAC. If you brush over the details of the execution in order to get to the tactics - what was the PLAN and did it work or not - that's the 'fly casual' camp. One group follows the 'letter of the law', while the other generally ignores it in favor of the spirit or intent of it...which is to provide a framework for the strategy of out-planning and out-flying (as in, 'the maneuvers on the board') their opponent.

Definitely forgotten it once or twice.

Can we also have a talk about what you do to remember pesky imperial triggers?

My friend gave me an acrylic cloak token that flips. The other side says ready to cloak. I love it. So much easier to remember. I also then out the cardboard cloak and a focus token in my hand during red dice rolling.

For isard I simply think each time if I want to boost.

Also as per magic play style proper etiquette would be to ask "enter combat?" Esp if the non isard player has the first attack. This is due to rushing would lead to errant information you can't have. So you have to choose to do something that would affect combat first. Ex see using an instant spell to kill off a possible attacker.

What would be your response if I had asked you to do that? That we both should say declare combat and back to setting dials?

My playgroup is pretty competitive, but we declare ahead of time if it is a friendly/list-testing game, or a tournament-prep game. If friendly, sure, do whatever action you forgot. If tournament prep, tough luck, and learn to deal with the consequences (better during a training game than a tourny game).

And that's really how I see the WAAC vs 'fly casual' distinction. If you are trying to win by exploiting obviously accidental events, you are playing WAAC.

Clearly you don't understand what WAAC actually means then.

Because you seem to take WAAC as anything that doesn't let you play as sloppy as you wish, yet still expect to have a chance to win.

Why not learn from your mistakes? Once ya get burned by it you usually don't make it again. Also TWAAC players are the ones who must win no matter what. They are the ones who will cheat to win. Playing to win and being competitive is not the same. If you really think this card will cause problems then you need to look at the area you are playing in. I assume we are all emotionally stable adults...

"Obviously accidental" is a pretty subjective term.

And that's really how I see the WAAC vs 'fly casual' distinction. If you are trying to win by exploiting obviously accidental events, you are playing WAAC. If you brush over the details of the execution in order to get to the tactics - what was the PLAN and did it work or not - that's the 'fly casual' camp. One group follows the 'letter of the law', while the other generally ignores it in favor of the spirit or intent of it...which is to provide a framework for the strategy of out-planning and out-flying (as in, 'the maneuvers on the board') their opponent.

So let me get this straight, any time I win because my opponent made mistakes that I didn’t correct I am considered WAAC?

In almost every strategy based game on the planet, the winner is invariably the player who made the least mistakes.

The definition of a mistake is quite broad, what you deem ‘outmanourvring’ many would consider a mistake from your opponent for not anticipating your manoeuvre, are you going to get them to correct their dial? What is the difference between flying off the board or flying into the path of Whisper at range 1? I would consider both to be mistakes yet you fell one has less merit that the other.

By this definition anyone who wins a game (including yourself) is WAAC.

Missed opportunities are part of the game, constantly allowing players to correct missed opportunities is actually a diservice to them as it tends to stunt growth and development in their game rather than learning from mistakes, instead they become accustomed to being let off. Then when they go to a tournament and the first player doenst let them have all the take backs they have been playing with the cry foul and scream WAAC players ruined their tournament.

K guys, I'm starting a new post format:

Dear Kyla,

I'm wondering what the good sport protocol for handling brain farts is.

Sincerely,

Mentally Flatulent from Alderraan

Dear Flatty,

A proper handling of such requires both players to be good sports, working together to have fun. The proper interaction would be:

"Flatty, you forgot to put your evasion token from Isard down"

"Oh bollocks, Kyla, I did. I appreciate you pointing it out, but the only way I'll remember is to take it as a played it."

In this way, both players are being true to the spirit of the game. Remember, if it is a first time, they may be still learning, and should always be given the opportunity to decide if they'll accept the handicap. A good sport relies on their own skills to win, not the inexperience or limitations of others.

Sincerely,

Dear Kyla

I agree with xanderf's premise that this card does have the potential to separate the WAACs from the Casuals. But maybe that's a good thing. I want to know who's a WAAC so that I don't burden them with my hippie/care bear style of play.

this card does have the potential to separate the WAACs from the Casuals.

There's a rather large place between expecting someone to remember their options and WAAC. I don't want to win at all costs, but I also don't think it's up to me point out every mistake you make.

I don't have an issue with pointing it out once or twice perhaps, especially if it's a new upgrade or build. But if someone's played a VT list the last 10 games, and expects me to remind them about that evade token every time... that's something different.

More importantly, what's the best biscuit? I already know the correct answer (it's the Bourbon), I'm just curious what you lot think.

In almost every strategy based game on the planet, the winner is invariably the player who made the least mistakes.

Fewest mistakes.

I'll stop now.

I won't. I'm a **nt.

In almost every strategy based game on the planet, the winner is invariably the player who made the least mistakes.

Fewest mistakes.

It does make me think thought... Would anyone playing Chess really ask to take back moving a King or Rook because they realized after the fact that they haven't castled yet?

Ysane doesn't like rough flying. If there is a stress token on the ship Ysane is on then there is no evade.

C-3PO is different as it gives an extra evade result once per round.

Why does it have to be waac for playing by the rules. You can do it AND not be a **** about it! I know strange concept.

Or maybe we should have 2 more sub forums. Dirty, smelly, casual, no skill hippie scum. And no fun having, cut throat, rules lawyering, win at all costs, competitive players.