Store championship level and above is when I personally stop giving much missed opportunity leeway, and I expect none in return. The leeway I do give is for immediate errors, like saying "Go ahead" followed immediately by "oh wait, action" within about half a second and before I've made any game state changing reveals. Denying immediate correction would put the denying party firmly in the jerk category.

I think people white knight for the forgetful far too often for premier level events. Really, it should be the other way around. It is just plain rude to ask for missed opportunity leeway at this level. It puts the opponent in a very awkward position. It is incredibly unsportsmanlike to get huffy and call someone a ****** when they tell you no.

Store level before championships is a whole different beast. I see store players as members of my team. Those games are practice games for the championships and beyond. In those games I am much more likely to remind about missed opportunities when I see them being missed. This is a health of the game thing as much as anything else. You don't want to be scaring players off from your local store if you want to keep having a healthy community to play with.

I used to judge for WoWTCG for UDE. They had an interesting rule about game state for mandatory events. Both players were responsible for maintaining the game state and missing any mandatory event was a punishable offence. That means you could get warnings or game losses for forgetting that Rebel Captive you just shot at. In practice this rarely came up, but judges were expected to punish both players equally for such missed effects at premier level events. I rather liked that rule and it has affected how I play all games since. Mandatory game state is everyone's responsibility. Optional triggers are the responsibility of the deciding party.

As much as I'm in favor of giving your opponent second chances... I will also concede that it is not BAD SPORTSMANSHIP to hold them to the rules.

Bad Sportsmanship would be stalling to force a win or draw. Bad Sportsmanship would be complaining that someone's focus token wasn't "close enough" to the base of it's ship, so it isn't allowed to be used. Bad Sportsmanship is trying to get your opponent disqualified due to a technicality, like they peg base broke on his/her ship and it can't fit on the stand anymore.

Your opponent is not entitled to you coaching them on how to beat you. Remembering your actions or knowing how your cards work is just as much of a skill as not flying into an asteroid. If a competitive game is a test of one's skills (and luck) against another's, then remembering actions and knowing how cards interact should be among those skills being tested.

In practice games, you should be lenient on your opponent and strict on yourself so you can get the most out of your practice game. You will not be getting the most accurate results if your opponent is not playing their list optimally. But when practice is over and there are prizes at stake, you're not doing yourself any favors by helping your opponent.

Leagues are an odd duck, because they usually have some kind of prize attached to performance at the end, but they "feel" very casual, like practice games. You need to decide for yourself what is worth more, the prize for winning, or the experience you get from playing against an opponent that is not making technical errors.

With regards to the OPs starting post. It sounds to me like either his opponent was having a bad day (don't we all) or he was flying someone else's list. In our casual group we like to play test things and when somebody builds a nasty list everybody tries to either copy it our counter it. Trying to play a list that isn't yours leads to forgetting what you can and cannot do. I will agree that casually we talk out a lot of things, but tournaments are a different animal.

If a competitive game is a test of one's skills (and luck) against another's, then remembering actions and knowing how cards interact should be among those skills being tested.

Assuming that not forgetting to re-roll for gunner and not flipping your next ship's maneuver dial before saying "focus"ftor the prior ship are actually skills, do you think that such skills have a place in determining who wins a game of X-Wing? I have walked away from a bunch of games where I think that I earned my victory because I outmaneuvered my opponent or that my opponent earned their victory by building a better list. I feel good about those games. I have also walked away, winning and losing, and thought that luck was the primary factor. Those victories and losses mean nothing to me. I can't say how I feel about reflecting on a win and thinking, "I was so much better at not forgetting, I deserved that win," because I have not been in that situation, but I can't imagine that I will be feeling particularly impressed with myself.

If a competitive game is a test of one's skills (and luck) against another's, then remembering actions and knowing how cards interact should be among those skills being tested.

Assuming that not forgetting to re-roll for gunner and not flipping your next ship's maneuver dial before saying "focus"ftor the prior ship are actually skills, do you think that such skills have a place in determining who wins a game of X-Wing? I have walked away from a bunch of game where I think that I earned my victory because I outmaneuvered my opponent or that my opponent earned their victory by building a better list. I feel good about those games. I have also walked away, winning and losing, and thought that luck was the primary factor. Those victories and kisses mean nothing to me. I can't say how I feel about reflecting on a win and thinking, "I was so much better at not forgetting, I deserved that win," because I have not been in that situation, but I can't imagine that I will be feeling particularly impressed with myself.

Not every win is going to be satisfying in a game that involves dice...

Which is what I just said. But we aren't talking about dice.

When it comes to reminding your opponents of their cards effects my take varies:

1. Effects that always or automatically happen should ALWAYS be reminded and even corrected if remembered after the fact.
2. Effects that have no use cost (Gunner, Predator, Focus for Whisper or Fel, and the like) should be reminded. Sure some may be "optional" but if they spent points on an option you should play against it when there is no reason not to use it.
3. Triggers with limits probably should be noted. If something is triggered and there is no conceivable reason not to take it I say ask.
4. If an ability is optional and there may be a clear reason for holding off on it, like spending a TL or Focus early, then I say you should let it ride unless training a newbie where asking about it means telling him the pros and cons of something.
5. Bad strategy I think you should just let go although you may question it at the end of the battle.

If you face something like the Whisper + FCS + Gunner + ACD situation you can hit many of those points. If Whisper shoots then the FCS is something that definitely should be reminded, after the attack you probably should point out Gunner and the Pilot ability as one should be triggered with Gunner providing the same option. The only piece here that I believe should be option is your opponent triggering ACD although 2/3 of the time you probably should note it if not use; that other 1/3 of the time is when the Phantom is 'safe' and cloaking could jeopardize getting shots next turn.

When it comes to reminding your opponents of their cards effects my take varies:

1. Effects that always or automatically happen should ALWAYS be reminded and even corrected if remembered after the fact.
2. Effects that have no use cost (Gunner, Predator, Focus for Whisper or Fel, and the like) should be reminded. Sure some may be "optional" but if they spent points on an option you should play against it when there is no reason not to use it.
3. Triggers with limits probably should be noted. If something is triggered and there is no conceivable reason not to take it I say ask.
4. If an ability is optional and there may be a clear reason for holding off on it, like spending a TL or Focus early, then I say you should let it ride unless training a newbie where asking about it means telling him the pros and cons of something.
5. Bad strategy I think you should just let go although you may question it at the end of the battle.

If you face something like the Whisper + FCS + Gunner + ACD situation you can hit many of those points. If Whisper shoots then the FCS is something that definitely should be reminded, after the attack you probably should point out Gunner and the Pilot ability as one should be triggered with Gunner providing the same option. The only piece here that I believe should be option is your opponent triggering ACD although 2/3 of the time you probably should note it if not use; that other 1/3 of the time is when the Phantom is 'safe' and cloaking could jeopardize getting shots next turn.

Or the guy flying it could remember that stuff...

Yeah, a lot of this sounds like it's supposed to be my responsibility to play my squad and my opponent's too so I can achieve some sort of honorable win. It's a game with little plastic spaceships. If I win by outplaying my opponent or win because they forgot to use FCS for four turns in a row, it's the same to me. I'm in it for an enjoyable game, not the karmic reward for playing "right." And unless my opponent is making such egregious errors that the game is a slog, them making mistakes isn't going to dampen my enjoyment.

Exactly

Especially if I'm traveling out of province

I'm going to have fun, and meet some great people, who are also very friendlY

But I'm not going to play my list and theirs

If I attack and notice they didn't take an action I'd let them have a focus but that's about as far as I'd go

If a competitive game is a test of one's skills (and luck) against another's, then remembering actions and knowing how cards interact should be among those skills being tested.

Assuming that not forgetting to re-roll for gunner and not flipping your next ship's maneuver dial before saying "focus"ftor the prior ship are actually skills, do you think that such skills have a place in determining who wins a game of X-Wing? I have walked away from a bunch of game where I think that I earned my victory because I outmaneuvered my opponent or that my opponent earned their victory by building a better list. I feel good about those games. I have also walked away, winning and losing, and thought that luck was the primary factor. Those victories and kisses mean nothing to me. I can't say how I feel about reflecting on a win and thinking, "I was so much better at not forgetting, I deserved that win," because I have not been in that situation, but I can't imagine that I will be feeling particularly impressed with myself.

The player that made the fewest mistakes should be the player that wins. If I made less mistakes then you before and during the game, whether they be list-building, strategic or technical mistakes, don't I "deserve" the win?

Yeah, a lot of this sounds like it's supposed to be my responsibility to play my squad and my opponent's too so I can achieve some sort of honorable win. It's a game with little plastic spaceships. If I win by outplaying my opponent or win because they forgot to use FCS for four turns in a row, it's the same to me. I'm in it for an enjoyable game, not the karmic reward for playing "right." And unless my opponent is making such egregious errors that the game is a slog, them making mistakes isn't going to dampen my enjoyment.

If you opponent selected gunner and doesn't use it because they forgot about that upgrade, then what is the practical difference between that and playing with a 5 point handicap?

And I think that the argument that saying "Hey, you have gunner," to your opponent means that you are flying their list for them borders on rediculous.

Yeah, a lot of this sounds like it's supposed to be my responsibility to play my squad and my opponent's too so I can achieve some sort of honorable win. It's a game with little plastic spaceships. If I win by outplaying my opponent or win because they forgot to use FCS for four turns in a row, it's the same to me. I'm in it for an enjoyable game, not the karmic reward for playing "right." And unless my opponent is making such egregious errors that the game is a slog, them making mistakes isn't going to dampen my enjoyment.

Whether the win was "honorable" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it for me. The point of playing a game with an ultimate winner and list is to compete. What is the point of playing if the competition isn't strong? You would still win if your opponent had a heart attack and died after turn 5. You would also win if you played against an opponent who was 5 years old. You should win if you are playing a 100 point list and your opponent is playing a 95 point list. I don't think that anyone would brag about winning in any of those situations. That said, I also get the impression that quite a few people would quietly put a notch on the 'win' side of their Plano case after such a game.

If you opponent selected gunner and doesn't use it because they forgot about that upgrade, then what is the practical difference between that and playing with a 5 point handicap?

And I think that the argument that saying "Hey, you have gunner," to your opponent means that you are flying their list for them borders on rediculous.

In a tournament it's about skill

If a player is forgetting what he has on his list then that is his responsibility. If he wants to win he will look down at his cards every time to make sure he didn't forget something.

If he doesn't that is where some parts of skill comes in.

If he has the jitters, well so do most, including his opponent as well.

It's also how well others can manage playing in such conditions

I for one could not play well in a large stake poker game. If I'm all nervous does that mean my opponent should take it easy on me?

I use that as an example because others have used the jittery thing as an excuse.

If I travel to an event I'm going there with the attention of doing my best And get some prizes, because I love ffg stuff.

I'll play fair and respectfully and have fun.

Only time I take it easy on my opponents is when the dice become totally one sided as to me that is not fun, even when I'm winning, and it's the one way I hate to win

I usually apologize even though I did nothing wrong in that aspect

If you shoot with whisper and said I'll cloak and forgot to put out your token, so long as I heard you declared it I'm fine.

If you said nothing, and I didn't think of it myself, which usually happens because I'm thinking my own stuff, and later tried to declare it, in the activation phase, I'm sorry but it's too late. That is part of his responsibility, not mine to remember

If I attack you and realized you have no action I'm kind enough to let you have a focus since who never take any action.

But if you didn't use gunner and shot with another ship and later tried to use gunner, it's too late.

Or Ysanne. If we already were shooting one another and at some point you realized you forgot to use Ysanne, again we are past that point

You should win if you are playing a 100 point list and your opponent is playing a 95 point list.

Um, that's not always a given. And not always some kind of error on your opponent's part. They may be angling for initiative. And I've seen plenty of matches where the 95-point list beats the 100-point list rather handily because *gasp* the 95-point squad was flown by a better player.

I guess the Patriots shouldn't feel good about winning the Super Bowl since the Seahawks made more mistakes than they did.

This must be a miscommunication, because you seem to believe that people are advocating for forgiving their opponents "mistakes," which you seem to think means letting them win.

Reviewing the previous posts, not a single person suggested anything to support your belief. There are even posts that explicitly state that mistakes based on skill are what people think should be the dividing line between winning and losing.

What People actually want to foster in the community or are just starting their preference for is very clear, so I suggest that you re-read the thread.

I am little confused by this statement from the OP. I am somewhat of a new player

" Before I could fire, he uses Roark's ability to give the Fringer PS12 and then tries to fire the HLC out of his main arc. I had to explain to him that couldn't do that as he hadn't taken the Outrider title."

I looked at the Outrider title - it states you cannot make a primary weapon attacks, but use secondary weapon attacks outside your firing ARC. He has HLC equipped but not Outrider, so I would think that the HLC only fires out of the main arc being a secondary weapon?

The primary weapon is turret based right? so he can fire that all around, unless he takes the Outrider, secondary would only fire from the main arc?

What am I missing based on his statement?

thanks

This must be a miscommunication, because you seem to believe that people are advocating for forgiving their opponents "mistakes," which you seem to think means letting them win.

Reviewing the previous posts, not a single person suggested anything to support your belief. There are even posts that explicitly state that mistakes based on skill are what people think should be the dividing line between winning and losing.

What People actually want to foster in the community or are just starting their preference for is very clear, so I suggest that you re-read the thread.

Look at this right here:

If you face something like the Whisper + FCS + Gunner + ACD situation you can hit many of those points. If Whisper shoots then the FCS is something that definitely should be reminded, after the attack you probably should point out Gunner and the Pilot ability as one should be triggered with Gunner providing the same option.

Someone forgetting to use FCS is a mistake. This post is saying you should remind them to use it. Not using Gunner is a mistake. This post is saying you should remind them to use it.

Obviously. You then said that one football team shouldn't be satisfied in their victory over another - which is an entirely different you're of mistake than those that you just referenced. That implies playing errors (the x-wing equivalent being hitting an asteroid). Not a single person is suggesting any leniency for bad decisions or lack of skill, which is you you implied was being done.

This must be a miscommunication, because you seem to believe that people are advocating for forgiving their opponents "mistakes," which you seem to think means letting them win.

I've seen a ton of posts where people say exactly that.

I remember a rather lengthy "debate" over someone flying their Falcon off the table, and why the other player was a poor sport for making them remove the ship.

In that case it was only off by a fairly small amount, but was clearly off. One side of the debate quite vehemently argued that it was poor sportsmanship to actually enforce the rules in this case.

We had one guy who isn't here any more who actually threatened physical assault on anyone who wouldn't let him take an action after the fact.

Any number of people have argued that if someone were to not let a Phantom w/ACD take the cloak action after shooting, that person should be exiled into the outer darkness.

What People actually want to foster in the community or are just starting their preference for is very clear

It's very important that people keep in mind that many of us who play strictly by the rules, and are unlikely to let someone fix a mistake do so only when we're playing at things like Store Championships or Regionals. We tend to be more lax when playing a casual game, and quite willing to offer advice beyond letting someone fix something when teaching a newbie.

Just because we play fairly cutthroat at Regionals doesn't mean we play the same way when teaching someone how to play the game.

Yeah, a lot of this sounds like it's supposed to be my responsibility to play my squad and my opponent's too so I can achieve some sort of honorable win. It's a game with little plastic spaceships. If I win by outplaying my opponent or win because they forgot to use FCS for four turns in a row, it's the same to me. I'm in it for an enjoyable game, not the karmic reward for playing "right." And unless my opponent is making such egregious errors that the game is a slog, them making mistakes isn't going to dampen my enjoyment.

Whether the win was "honorable" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it for me. The point of playing a game with an ultimate winner and list is to compete. What is the point of playing if the competition isn't strong? You would still win if your opponent had a heart attack and died after turn 5. You would also win if you played against an opponent who was 5 years old. You should win if you are playing a 100 point list and your opponent is playing a 95 point list. I don't think that anyone would brag about winning in any of those situations. That said, I also get the impression that quite a few people would quietly put a notch on the 'win' side of their Plano case after such a game.

If you opponent selected gunner and doesn't use it because they forgot about that upgrade, then what is the practical difference between that and playing with a 5 point handicap?

And I think that the argument that saying "Hey, you have gunner," to your opponent means that you are flying their list for them borders on rediculous.

I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from. From your perspective, a W/L record in casual play is something to be celebrated and worn on one's sleeve. Or at least you think that's how other people see their world of competitive gaming.

What should be celebrated and touted are tournament trophies, a proof that you were the best player in a field of your peers, where games were fair, rules were enforced and everyone knew to bring their best and play their strongest. This is where W/L records actually do matter, and all that matters is your W/L record for that day. Two people in the tournament could have lifetime records of 100-5 and 5-100, but if the 5-100 player got all his wins on the day of the tournament, then he gets the trophy and he is the champion, regardless of all his previous losses. If he got paired against a hamster and a cinder block in rounds 1 and 2 (the cinder block got a round 1 bye) then oh well, eventually he had to defeat a winner to become the champion. That's why you pair people based on strength of schedule, so that eventually the good players will have to play against other good players and can't just keep farming the chaff. And that's why the 1st place trophy is what matters, because you can win games by playing against cinder blocks, but to win the trophy you have to beat other winners.

In casual games W/L record matters very little, what matters is what is learned. As you said, outside of tournaments and leagues there's nothing to stop somebody from just playing a hundred games against a cinder block or his hamster and "marking wins on his plano box" a hundred times. Both wins and losses are opportunities for growth, regardless of the strength of the opponent. This is why I advocate for being lenient on opponents in casual games, where the purpose is to learn from the game, not just the result. The other night I played against a new-ish player who k-turned his ship off the table on turn 4 and I made him change his move, even though half of our lists had moved already. Even after a very strong start on my side, I went on to lose that game by a very narrow margin (actually had to leave before the last 2 ships were destroyed, but it looked very grim for me). Losing that game made me realize the 2 big mistakes I had made that had cost me the game that otherwise would not have been apparent to me. If I had held him to his mistake and then crushed him, I might have reinforced false ideas I had about how to play against his list that would have done me a disservice in future games.

But a tournament's primary purpose is to prove who are the best players. Yes, tournaments are an opportunity for growth, but if you are going to a tournament to learn how to play, you need to realize that that is not the primary purpose of the event, and the other players should not be expected to jeopardize their own results to accommodate your lack of experience or cognitive abilities, and be very appreciative when they do. Don't feel like you are entitled to anything in a tournament other than a fair game and the right to stand on your own two feet as a player.

From my perspective, a win/loss record doesn't mean anything. I have beaten a lot of people at and lot of things and never once looked at it by the numbers. What meters is who you beat and how you beat them. For example me telling you that I have beaten 10,000 people in the 100 meter dash doesn't mean anything (Did I win against toddlers? Amputees? Blind people when the race was through the woods? Who knows?). Me telling you that I beat one person but that the person was Usain Bolt means a lot. However, if I then told you that, on the occasion that I won, Bolt set up incorrectly and ran the wrong way for the first ten seconds, then we are right back to my 'victory' being nothing more than a crappy plastic trophy for me to look at when I feel my internal edge of superiority slipping.

Also, I don't think that most people expect anything, it is just that they would give the reminder.

However, if I then told you that, on the occasion that I won, Bolt set up incorrectly and ran the wrong way for the first ten seconds, then we are right back to my 'victory' being nothing more than a crappy plastic trophy for me to look at when I feel my internal edge of superiority slipping.

That's really severe though, and not what we're talking about. The X-Wing equivalent of that would be, "Yeah, I beat him, but he rolled green dice for attack the first four rounds of the game and couldn't understand why he wasn't hitting me at all."

Bolt not coming out of the starting blocks with proper technique and losing, or being disqualified because he didn't stay in his own lane, that's more along the lines of what's being discussed here.

I know that it is just an example, but that is not possible as it would be cheating. The equivalent could be deploying a ship backward and being forced to fly it off the edge on turn 1.

How about an opponent doing a harinstead when you intended a hard right? That single mistake can and dies cost player the victory standing alone. the failure to recloak a phantom (although that one can involve subsequent developments, but not always), boost away from the edge, or focus a stealth interceptor can do the same.

Also, doesn't it concern you that you have to raise the gravity of the error in order to support playing through it? What you are implying is that you will take the advantage until it essentially results in a win from the start. So, some advantages resulting from obvious error should be forgiven while others should be played through. If one advantage contaminates the competition, why not the other?

From my perspective, a win/loss record doesn't mean anything. I have beaten a lot of people at and lot of things and never once looked at it by the numbers. What meters is who you beat and how you beat them. For example me telling you that I have beaten 10,000 people in the 100 meter dash doesn't mean anything (Did I win against toddlers? Amputees? Blind people when the race was through the woods? Who knows?). Me telling you that I beat one person but that the person was Usain Bolt means a lot. However, if I then told you that, on the occasion that I won, Bolt set up incorrectly and ran the wrong way for the first ten seconds, then we are right back to my 'victory' being nothing more than a crappy plastic trophy for me to look at when I feel my internal edge of superiority slipping.

Also, I don't think that most people expect anything, it is just that they would give the reminder.

Do you play in tournaments? If you don't, then I think we are in agreement. Because it seems we both agree that for the most part W/L records do not actually mean much in casual play or practice play, and therefore it's beneficial in the long run to help your opponent, but in tournament play your W/L is the standard by which all players are judged. The results of a properly run tournament are hard and fast, either you played better than everyone else that day and won the thing or you didn't, there is no "I won but not really".

Your sprinting metaphor doesn't really work when you describe a cognitive mistake (facing the wrong way) being made in a contest of physical ability. X-Wing is a contest of mental ability, so mental mistakes should factor in to who wins or loses, just like if Bolt didn't train his starting block technique enough and trips over his own feet when the pistol fires. You didn't trip over your own feet, does that somehow invalidate your victory when you get the medal? And if your method of self-measurement is to measure yourself against a specific person, how does you artificially making that person better achieve that? You're now just measuring yourself against an imaginary opponent that doesn't actually exist in real life, at least not in front of you. If he did exist, he wouldn't need your help to beat you.

Instead of creating your own personal criteria for what constitutes a real victory rather than using the game's spelled-out criteria for victory, you should play to the best of your abilities in both practice and tournaments, seek out opponents that are stronger than you by playing in tournaments, leagues and online, and lift up those around you if you think they are not giving you a proper challenge. You don't need an imaginary Usain Bolt type opponent to be your personal measuring stick, that's what tournaments are for.