It's not a big deal when you're playing for fun, or even when you're playing a local tournament with a bunch of friends where winning buys you nothing more than bragging rights. An opponent makes a mistake (like misjudging a turn, and having a little of their ship's base off the mat at the end of their turn) and instead of insisting that they remove the ship, we instead allow the game to continue as though their last move hadn't actually destroyed the ship. The idea is that because we value having fun more than we value winning, we are willing to relax a ruling because - hey, it's our game.

I don't know anyone hyper-competitive enough to have a problem with that.

But things are not so straight forward when you're playing in a where ranking matters.

If Johnny-NiceGuy is in a regional tournament, and allows Bill-WannaWinBad to keep in play a ship that ought to be forfeit on account of flying it off the map because Johnny-NiceGuy is in fact a nice guy, and Bill-WannaWinBad wants to win so bad he is willing to accept the charity even though he knows it will skew the swiss round numbers, and may even give him a win his bad flying should have cost him - if a judge is there and sees this...

Do you believe that the judge who witnesses this should remain quiet because it is a gentleman's agreement after all, and if Johnny wants to be nice, and Bill wants to accept Johnny's niceness - that's none of his (or anyone else's) business...

Or..

Do you believe that the judge who witnesses this should step in, clarify the rules, and insist that Johnny and Bill play by them, removing the ship that was flown off the map from play..

?

NOTE:

...Tournament Organizers and judges for premier championship tournaments (Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds) are expected to commit their full attention to organizing and judging the event, and therefore are not permitted to participate in their own Regional, National, or World Championship events as players

This shouldn't even be a question. If the judge flat out sees this then it is his duty to correct the situation. This is different than just missing an action trigger and your opponent lets you "go back" in my opinion. Especially if it's, as you say, in a Regional. I'm sure this thread will be taken over by the inevitable arguments of "fly casual" or "win at all costs" but come on, there are rules in the game for a reason. Again, we're talking high level COMPETITIVE play not a casual game down at the game store here.

Wiffel-ball-bat-time!

Armageddon level, even...

I'm sure this thread will be taken over by the inevitable arguments of "fly casual" or "win at all costs" but come on, there are rules in the game for a reason.

Neither one really applies in this case, because it's the TO we're talking about. A TO can't be guilty of WAAC, since he/she isn't even playing the game. Fly Casual also doesn't count here, because Fly Casual is never about letting someone else break the rules.

A TO not only should, but IMO has to intervene if they see something that is breaking the rules. The 'missed opportunities' clause in the rules is not license to break the rules, it simply allows one player to fix something the forgot.

A TO that doesn't intervene in a game when they see someone doing something wrong doesn't have any place being a TO in the first place. This could be something like a ship flying off the table and the other player thinking they'd let it stay on the table, or someone forgetting to subtract an evade die when Wedge attacks.

Anytime a TO see's someone doing something that is clearly against the rules they need to get involved, because breaking the rules is never optional.

Get your popcorn fast guys, this is gonna be a fun one!

I already got tha bat ready...

Flying off the board kills you. Period. If I am in casual game and it is off by just a hair, the ship is still dead. Part of flying casual is being willing to play the rules.

If you fly your ship off the board and then ask permission of your opponent to let the ship live, you are the one breaking the fly casual rule. A good player will laugh about it, maybe even indulge in a little light hearted complaining that they let it happen. But if a ship dies it is too big of a deal to let your opponent let it slide.

IMOP asking your opponent to let you keep a ship alive after it flew off the board (even a hair) is like asking him for a re-roll on the green dice after four blank green dice kills your phantom.

This isn't something you forget to do like take your action or spend your focus.

Remember Flying casual is something you do. It is not something you can impose on your opponent.

As for what the judges should do. I think it is pretty obvious, they enforce the rules. That's what judges do.

I bet there's a story here.

I've never seen anything like that outside of casual play. Lots of ticky tack in arc/ out arc stuff but never something so against the rules.

Yeah, at home I've changed and been let change the manuever. Heck, I decloaked Echo right off the board the first time I played her. But that's at home.

I'm super casual and even i'd say you go off the board by picking the wrong move your dead in a tournament game, in a casual game whatever.

The only time my play group allowed anyone to keep a ship on the board after "barely" flying off the board was in our first big group Epic game, the day the Rebel Epic ships were released. We under estimated the swing/drift of the backside of the CR-90, & the rebel players had deployed it along the ship along the back edge, so in the very first movement phase it was off the back of the mat.

That is the only time that has happened & the ship been allowed to "survive".

I bet there's a story here.

It happened in a live streamed game. I believe in MN? Xizor went off the edge by a hair. TO let it slide.

In a casual game, I can understand letting someone keep the ship if it was only off by a tiny bit, especially if the model was knocked out of place in the last few turns.

In a tournament, though, ship flies off, dead ship.

The amount of leniency a player has is up to their opponent. If it's beyond reason then sure, a TO can intervene, and what's beyond reason is up to the TO.

However, only the TO and the opponent get any say in the matter. All too often it's not the TO or the opponent complaining, it's a third party. Happened at the US National last year, an audience member tried to impose rulings on the game.

If you're the TO it's your event to handle how you see fit. If you're the opponent, then you decide how lenient to be with your opponent. If you're a third party then don't interfere: you shouldn't backseat play or backseat TO.

As for it skewing results, either player can flat out concede and give the other player a full win at any time.

Context matters for me. Opening move of the game, your ship is supposed to be parallel to the edge of the map, but was slightly it's off after doing a straight? You're okay. A clearly new player who clearly intended to go left but set their dial to right? Sure, take the intended move.

A veteran player who makes a mistake after turn 1? Your ship is dead.

The amount of leniency a player has is up to their opponent.

No it really isn't. There's never a valid reason to let someone else break the rules in a premier level event, especially if they do so knowingly. Everyone else at the event could be affected by letting someone keep a ship on the table that should of been destroyed.

A clearly new player who clearly intended to go left but set their dial to right? Sure, take the intended move.

This. Might even be a not a not so new player... From what I hear it happens about once a tournament around here.

The amount of leniency a player has is up to their opponent.

No it really isn't. There's never a valid reason to let someone else break the rules in a premier level event, especially if they do so knowingly. Everyone else at the event could be affected by letting someone keep a ship on the table that should of been destroyed.

This.

The Swiss Ranking is affected, and that means it isn't just between a person and their opponent - it is something that affects everyone.

The amount of leniency a player has is up to their opponent.

No it really isn't. There's never a valid reason to let someone else break the rules in a premier level event, especially if they do so knowingly. Everyone else at the event could be affected by letting someone keep a ship on the table that should of been destroyed.

I agree with VanorDM. At least with this fly off the board thing.

The problem with leaving it up to your opponent is this.

Oh look my opponent just flew off the board. He looks at me and says, "Hey, is it okay if we just let it slide this time? It's up to you."

But their is no good answer to this question. If I say "nope, sorry. Soontir Fell is just dead. I guess that's 36 victory points to me. I look like a jerk who cares more about my need to win than sportsmanship..

But if I say "Sure, why not" I have been doing everything in my power to kill that guy, and now that the rules say he is dead, I just screw myself over to look good.

The truth is my opponent is actually the one with bad sportsmanship for even asking permission to essentially cheat in the game.

In a real "fly casual" game, this shouldn't even come up. Being a good sport is a willingness to play by the rules even when it kills your ship.

The only time I can see where you might let this slide was if you were teaching someone to play. Now if you hadn't explained the rule about flying off the board yet, then of course they get a pass. But most cases you have explained the rule, but the new player is absorbing so many new rules that they might have forgotten. In this case I think it is maybe okay to let them keep their ship. But I would point out, that nothing teaches you a rule better than forgetting about it and getting screwed over for it. If you do kill a new player's ship for flying off the board it will in the long run make them a better player.

Judge should be upholding the rules. A gentlemen's agreement like that is essentially just both players agreeing to cheat. In a tournament, that shouldn't be tolerated.

In a casual game, it's whatever the players agree on.

I look like a jerk who cares more about my need to win than sportsmanship..

Anyone who would think you're a WAAC jerk or poor sport for something like that, frankly has no place at a premier level event.

In a casual game, it's whatever the players agree on.

That's a vital distinction, we're not talking about friendly/casual games here, pick up games at the LGS or friday night games at someone's kitchen table.

We're talking about games at Regionals, National or Worlds, and perhaps Store Championships.

While some people may be bold enough to ask their opponent to overlook the fact that their poor flying landed their ship partially (or all the way) off the map, I think there are some players who are so concerned with being a nice guy person, that they will offer to let their opponent chose another maneuver, or fudge their ship back onto the table - and will think than in doing so they are actually being "good sports".

I admire the strength of character it takes to graciously allow another person's mistakes to be overlooked - especially when doing so is to your own detriment. But when doing so is not only to your own detriment - but also to the possible/likely) detriment of the other players whose position in the swiss will be effected (some good some bad) by this generous allowance.

When it is two players playing and the outcome of their game has no effect on any other game - I say if one person wants to be generous in that way - I don't mind. But when the outcome of the game is going to influence and affect players who are not at the table - then that sort of generosity, is misplaced since it is directed at the player at hand, while ignoring all the other players it will affect.

You're not being a gentleman gentleperson when you allow your opponent to retain points they ought to have lost, if in doing so you are skewing everyone else's legitimate place in the Swiss list. It may seem like it is simply a matter of a better character or an agreement between the parties involved - but since -all- parties are affected by the outcome - it isn't "fair" to everyone else if a person is allowed to retain a ship they have no legitimate claim to.

The rules are there to keep the field level - and because any infraction at this level can affect or influence the outcome of the tournament, it is a much bigger deal than just a small passing agreement between two players.

Judges are obligated to give their full attention to this sort of thing - in order to do what can be done to ensure that the people who make it to the cut off deserve to be there.

I bet there's a story here.

It happened in a live streamed game. I believe in MN? Xizor went off the edge by a hair. TO let it slide.

I saw that on stream, too. It sounded like the TO let it slide because the Xizor player was intending to push the limit afterward and boost, and ruled that since he couldn't boost, the entire action was undone.

(I don't agree with that, by the way. You don't commit to pushing the limit before you perform your first action.)

The amount of leniency a player has is up to their opponent.

No it really isn't. There's never a valid reason to let someone else break the rules in a premier level event, especially if they do so knowingly. Everyone else at the event could be affected by letting someone keep a ship on the table that should of been destroyed.

All it can change is the outcome of the game, and in the favour of the (arguably) weaker player. That advantage is the opponent's to concede. If you start thinking along the lines of how games you're not a part of affect you you rapidly end up in a quagmire where pretty much everything that could affect another player's performance is either placing you at an advantage or disadvantage. Player has to leave and concedes? Other player wins by default, scores shift. Player gets angry for some reason and does worse than usual? Scores shift. Lack of food, hungry players play worse? Scores shift. Weather. Scores shift. You can't game the system that deeply because it doesn't hold up at that level. The only player that's directly disadvantaged by the concession is the opponent. When you start getting upset that you allegeded lost because someone played worse against someone else than they "should have," when you start thinking that you'd have won if X had beaten Y and B had beaten C it's worth asking yourself if you're finding someone else to blame for your defeat than yourself.

In your own games you and your opponent set the limits. If you're the TO, then you're the final arbiter on everything. If you're not the TO or a judge and you're not one of the players, it's not your place to interfere in any way, shape or form.

This happened (to me) at Regionals. We were in the Top 8 and my opponent put his Chiraneau just off the edge. I insisted that he keep the ship. I had my entire squadron, practically at full health, at Range 2 facing his damaged Chirpy; it wasn't like I was going to lose, so I might as well give him a chance. The TO walked by and noticed that he was off the edge and brought it to our attention (and made sure I knew that he was clearly off, etc, etc), and I told him that as far as I was concerned, Chiraneau lived on. He let the game continue, and I don't see anything terribly wrong about that, given that (a) both players were in agreement and (b) it wouldn't change the outcome. If my opponent had asked me if he could keep Cheerio (not that he would have, as he was a very gracious, 'fly casual' player), it might have been a different matter; but I insisted on the point, because I wanted to win on my own skill, and I know how painful it is to beat yourself up about misjudging a two-turn on a big ship .

So if the outcome of the game is in question, the TO should intervene, because if he doesn't and the outcome is different from what's expected, there will be hard feelings on both sides. But I also think that there are times when the TO should be permitted to let it slide.

So if the outcome of the game is in question, the TO should intervene, because if he doesn't and the outcome is different from what's expected, there will be hard feelings on both sides. But I also think that there are times when the TO should be permitted to let it slide.

But the outcome of the game is immediately altered. The dead ship is firing on the enemy contributing damage. It's flight path is a lane that the enemy cannot safely land on without losing action. The enemy must spend attacks to kill the dead ship again when it could be killing the remaining ships, and in that extended play time might lose a ship it otherwise wouldn't have.

MoV scoring says that as soon as that dead ship is allowed to fly on, the game is altered. Only a pass/fail grading system with no points outside of absolute win or absolute loss would be unaffected as long as the player not flying the dead ship still won.