Yeah, the whole "the rules should be enforced to make it fair for everyone in Swiss" argument doesn't fly when the game also has a "concede" rule.

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.

No one is talking about what a bystander should or shouldn't do. We're talking about what the TO should or shouldn't do.

I agree, if I'm not one of the players I shouldn't get involved, but other than that, you're completely wrong. It's never acceptable to cheat, even if both players agree upon it. In fact doing so could be grounds to have you removed from the event, because you are in fact having an impact on the other players.

Everything else you list is nothing more than a strawman and distraction. I don't care if someone is hungry or upset, or has to use the bathroom. What matters is that someone is allowing the rules to be broken, and that makes it a completely different thing.

But I also think that there are times when the TO should be permitted to let it slide.

A TO should never allow the rules to be broken, regardless of the situation. They're not there to make sure people have fun games, they're not there to help decide the outcome of the game.

The primary job they have is to make sure everyone plays by the rules.

Last Saturday, during the Ohio Regional, in my last match with a very nice dude, I was in a situation where I needed to boost right near the table edge but I was debating whether or not IG-88 would stay on.

After looking at it for awhile (and the other guy looking at it), he suddenly says, "go ahead, you can take it back if it doesn't fit." Like I said, super-nice guy, and a great opponent.

A lot of people would call that "flying casual", or good sportsmanship. I can understand that viewpoint, but I'm not sure I agree. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's the opposite of those things at all. But there is a line beyond which the terms get so diluted, that the entire point of playing a game is lost (as opposed to simply 'playing' with toy spaceships).

If you'll allow me a sports comparison, in a casual game of basketball, many transgressions are overlooked: light fouls, an extra step, toe on the line, etc. In fact, to call each of these out will soon get you uninvited to the next game. But this doesn't apply to the competitive arena. There are rules to the game, and while some players have good sportsmanship, and others bad, the rules are still enforced.

When it comes to keeping your ships in the playing area, this is a basic rule. If it's off, it's off. If the other guy bumped it during his move, after you set your dial, that might be worth making some sort of exception.

I appreciated his offer, but I waved it off. I told him I was gonna boost, and accept the consequences, and it turned out IG stayed in play. As for a TO, he's there to enforce the rules of an event, not just facilitate people playing with plastic toy spaceships.

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.

The outcome is always in question, you could have easily rolled all blanks. Plenty of times have I thought a ship would surely die, and it somehow survived. If the outcome was truly NOT in question, then there's no reason to keep the ship on and roll dice, just go ahead and remove it.

Imo, the TO should have simply (and with good humor, graciousness, etc) enforced the rule.

If you had no issue with it then there's no dispute to resolve. The TO there is pointing it out to you in the belief that you hadn't noticed.

In my experience, the players that personally would not allow their opponents to take back mistakes tend to be the ones that believe nobody should. I've long believed that the reason for this is, at least in part, because they feel judged for not allowing takebacks and take the stance that nobody should because it makes them feel better about their own attitudes. It's a common human thing applicable to a vast array of scenarios. I saw a lot of it on the Worlds stream last year and it happened in the GenCon final, audience members with no involvement in the game (and in this case not even part of the tournament) getting very upset about one player being anything short of cutthroat their opponent.

Now whether or not the player who's ship went off should accept the offer to keep it on, that's a bit murkier.

I agree, if I'm not one of the players I shouldn't get involved, but other than that, you're completely wrong. It's never acceptable to cheat, even if both players agree upon it. In fact doing so could be grounds to have you removed from the event, because you are in fact having an impact on the other players.

What if a player concedes? What about the ACD cloaking example from GenCon?

Yeah, the whole "the rules should be enforced to make it fair for everyone in Swiss" argument doesn't fly when the game also has a "concede" rule.

If a player concedes to pad someone else's score both players can be removed from the tournament. This is clearly laid out in the tournament rules.

And if they concede for another reason? That still drives the opponent's score up.

I expect a TO to intervene if/when the players at a table cannot agree, or if there is intentional manipulation of the standings through collusion. I don't see where this is either of those conditions. On the other hand, a ship going off the table is a clear case of things simply being what they are, not a lot of room there for wiggle. Ignoring a ship being off the table feels to me like ignoring that you rolled enough damage to blow it up. It's dead Jim, I'm a doctor not a necromancer...

On the other hand.... At the end of a long tournament, I have had opponents place a dial down backwards. I consistently have them maneuver the ship the way they intended, rather than fly their ship off the board. I also consistently allow forgotten tokens to be placed, and if there is a judgement call I prefer to simply have my opponent make it rather than call a judge. I have heard people complain about how that affects the MoV for the rest of the field, but it hasn't changed my mind.

I am playing my own game not anyone elses, and I am playing to win the tournament myself in a manner that allows me to enjoy the day. A large part of my enjoyment comes from knowing my opponents have enjoyed their games as well. I am not playing with an eye towards other players standings, and I am not going to alter my play in an attempt to help/hinder other players MoV. I do not insist on other players doing well/poorly in order to affect my standings, if I make it I do so based on my own actions and if I don't then I should have done more in the games I played in. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to make sure my MoV is sufficient. I avoid the temptation to want others to alter their play by ignoring MoV in all ways except trying to make the most of the particular game I am playing.

I know some people have had heartburn over my choices, but although I regret that they were upset my only response is that I am not playing for their standings, I am playing for my own. Ultimately, there is no "nice guy" award, and nothing you do could possibly please everyone, so I try to play in a manner that I believe is the best example of who I want to be. If I fall short of that standard, which unfortunately happens from time to time, I apologize and resolve to do better.

It's a game, just a game.

If you had no issue with it then there's no dispute to resolve. The TO there is pointing it out to you in the belief that you hadn't noticed.

And again you'd be wrong. The rule about flying a ship off the table isn't subject to approval by the other player. There is no dispute, other than perhaps if the ship is actually off or not. But if either both players or the TO decide a ship is off the table, it's not optional if it's destroyed.

The ship is destroyed period. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about people wanting to see the rules followed by everyone fairly.

What if a player concedes? What about the ACD cloaking example from GenCon?

Concede has nothing to do with this, it's a discussion of if the rules should be enforced or not. The ACD cloaking issue from GenCon however is covered under the 'Missed Opportunities' section of the rules. The player forgot to take an action and the rules clearly state that if the other player agrees you can go back and perform an action after the fact.

It comes down to your view of active judging.

I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about people wanting to see the rules followed by everyone fairly.

Because unless you're the TO or one of the two players it's none of your business, and the TO, by virtue of being the TO, gets to decide to what extent they allow players to resolve situations in the game themselves. If you're the TO then you handle it however you think you should, but are you not stating that if a TO allows the players to resolve such an issue between them then that TO is in the wrong? And is that not then a third party passing judgement on a game where they're neither player nor TO?

And as soon as you make the argument that it could affect Swiss rankings, other ways players can inadvertently (or deliberately) affect Swiss rankings (such as by conceding) do become relevant.

Yes, there comes a point where you go from being lenient with the rules to rewriting them, but is that really the reality of the situation? If one player starts allowing their opponent to roll extra attack dice, repeatedly reroll when there's nothing wrong with the roll or allow them to keep a ship that's quite literally off the board then granted the TO probably should intervene. But we're talking accidentally setting a dial backwards or minor corner clipping here, mistakes borne of tiredness or hairline misjudgements. That's not going to prop up a player that would otherwise have been annihilated. The green dice are far more likely to skew Swiss rankings away from skill order than a player not being cutthroat with their opponent. The TO's in all rights to intervene if they wish, but there's nothing wrong with them allowing players to set their own leniency levels within reason.

To me this thread only strengthens the fact that FFG needs to standardize and clarify an official TO program for their events be it Store Champs, Regionals, launch events etc. the community will probably never agree on what is the proper response to take backs, missed opportunities, etc. but if we can't agree on what the role of a TO/Judge is then I don't know what else to say. It shouldn't be left up to your view of "active judging." Again this isn't a league night or a local event we're talking about. In a premier competitive event I don't think the role of TO Is to insure that everyone has a good time when it comes to judging, they should enforce the rules as written. I don't understand why we can't agree on that. In a game where,IMO, the predominant skill is manuvering, flying your ship off the board is pretty black and white.

Never the less..... Flame on

And is that not then a third party passing judgement on a game where they're neither player nor TO?

No, I'm someone talking on a message board about what a TO should do, there's no games being actively played here so I'm not a 3rd party interrupting a game being played. Just to make it clear, to avoid making this whole thing open to pointless debate about something else. I'm in no way saying that a bystander should be injecting their opinion during a game being played. The most anyone should do is discreetly point out a possible issue to the TO, if the TO isn't already actively watching the game in question.

A TO that won't enforce the rules as written has IMO no place being a TO. That is the point of this discussion after all, what a TO should do or shouldn't do.

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.)

I didn't see the stream, could you elaborate? Did the Xizor player barrel roll off the board and the TO determined that since he couldn't boost back on, undo the entire action?

I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about people wanting to see the rules followed by everyone fairly.

Because unless you're the TO or one of the two players it's none of your business, and the TO, by virtue of being the TO, gets to decide to what extent they allow players to resolve situations in the game themselves. If you're the TO then you handle it however you think you should, but are you not stating that if a TO allows the players to resolve such an issue between them then that TO is in the wrong? And is that not then a third party passing judgement on a game where they're neither player nor TO?

And as soon as you make the argument that it could affect Swiss rankings, other ways players can inadvertently (or deliberately) affect Swiss rankings (such as by conceding) do become relevant.

Yes, there comes a point where you go from being lenient with the rules to rewriting them, but is that really the reality of the situation? If one player starts allowing their opponent to roll extra attack dice, repeatedly reroll when there's nothing wrong with the roll or allow them to keep a ship that's quite literally off the board then granted the TO probably should intervene. But we're talking accidentally setting a dial backwards or minor corner clipping here, mistakes borne of tiredness or hairline misjudgements. That's not going to prop up a player that would otherwise have been annihilated. The green dice are far more likely to skew Swiss rankings away from skill order than a player not being cutthroat with their opponent. The TO's in all rights to intervene if they wish, but there's nothing wrong with them allowing players to set their own leniency levels within reason.

This is exactly why for premier competitive events, which is what this thread started out about, that there needs to be an official TO program in place. TOs should not have the wiggle room to ignore core rules of the game. Flying off the board is a core concept, it's not a missed opportunity, I don't care why it happened. You misjudged the distance, you were tired after 5 rounds of Swiss and put down the wrong dial. Sorry that's part of the competition. But I digress. The issue is what the TO should be doing not a gentlemen's agreement between the two players.

This is exactly why for premier competitive events, which is what this thread started out about, that there needs to be an official TO program in place.

Last year at Worlds they said they were working on a Judge's program, where people could take a test and be certified as judges for a given game.

But haven't heard anything about it since then.

True. I can't see any downside to FFG having official rulings for how TOs should handle situations.

It is any event where players pay money to enter, then all rules need to be enforced all the time. Period. You are doing the other players a disservice by allowing another player to enhance his/her MoV by allowing the ship to live. Do you want to be the person who has to tell another player who missed a cut because you allowed a mulligan on a move that their day is done? Didn't think so.

If this was Wednesday night in your garage, who cares. Although, an argument can be made that that you are stunting a players growth by repeatedly ignoring rules.

Do baseball players get to have a gentleman's agreement in the World Series? "You know what, you meant to throw that to the 1st baseman, but even though your throw went 20 feet wide, your intentions were correct so we'll go ahead and call that guy out"

Or -

Let's take the TO out of the question for the moment and consider a situation where we can automate some of the TO judgement calls with technology. What if there was a laser-type barrier surrounding the play surface and if any part of the ship base crosses that barrier the ship is deemed destroyed.

In competitive play, this isn't a judgement call type ruling. You might as well agree that a YT-1300 only has 7 hull instead of what is printed on the card. Except - you can't do that. To not play by the most basic rules of the game undermines the entire competitive landscape of that tournament and puts people in the position of determining if this is good natured sportsmanship or deliberate collusion to affect tournament results.

If you're playing someone who's making rookiee mistakes like flying their ship off the board you were probably going to beat them anyway.

Do baseball players get to have a gentleman's agreement in the World Series? "You know what, you meant to throw that to the 1st baseman, but even though your throw went 20 feet wide, your intentions were correct so we'll go ahead and call that guy out"

The hyperbole does your argument a disservice by making it sound unrealistic, but I get your point. However, it's worth pointing out that there's a lot of money involved in big sports events like that, and concessions you may expect in friendly games could lead to suspicions of corruption and match fixing in the big ones. That doesn't really apply to X-Wing, if you're going to the effort to fix matches in X-Wing you're taking it waaay too seriously. Although I'd go as far as to say if you go to the effort to cheat in X-Wing you need to go home and rethink your life.

It is any event where players pay money to enter, then all rules need to be enforced all the time. Period. You are doing the other players a disservice by allowing another player to enhance his/her MoV by allowing the ship to live. Do you want to be the person who has to tell another player who missed a cut because you allowed a mulligan on a move that their day is done? Didn't think so.

If this was Wednesday night in your garage, who cares. Although, an argument can be made that that you are stunting a players growth by repeatedly ignoring rules.

While I can see some of the other points in favour of the TO should intervene, and some of them are pretty convincing (I can't find fault with the argument for consistency in premier events), the MoV argument doesn't hold. You have no obligation whatsoever to play in a manner to minimise your opponent's MoV at every opportunity so that a third player makes the cut in their stead. If a player accused me of being the reason they didn't make the cut I'd accuse them of externalising the blame for their defeat. Besides, it's a dice game, the variance is massive anyway. The MoV argument also applies to any suboptimal move, including allowing takebacks in ways specifically permitted by the rules.

Now, if you know you're making the cut and you deliberately go very easy on a poor player so that they make the cut in order to improve your chances, that's a problem. And I can see why the difficulty in determining that would be a good case against what could be argued to be excessive leniency in premier events.

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.)

I didn't see the stream, could you elaborate? Did the Xizor player barrel roll off the board and the TO determined that since he couldn't boost back on, undo the entire action?

Yeah, that's what I recall.

Edit: Actually, maybe that wasn't it. (The vagaries of human memory!) Thinking about it more, I believe Xizor focused, then Pushed the Limit to boost, which put him off the board. The TO ruled that the boost failed, and therefore could be unwound, which is contrary to the standing ruling that you can in fact boost or barrel roll off the board. Either that, or it was ruled that it could be undone because it was part of a Push the Limit. Table audio was really quiet, so I couldn't really tell what happened.

If Johnny Nice-Guy lets Bill Wanna-Win-Bad not lose the ship, that's drastically unfair to Bill Wanna-Win-Bad's next opponent.

It alters both of their MoV.

Bill WWB will face a different player.

Having a higher-than-actual MoV results in the player that Bill would have faced if you had intervened playing against a more difficult opponent, while giving Bill's new opponent an unfair advantage.

Johnny NG will also face a different player.

Johnny's lower-than-deserved MoV matches him against an easier opponent, who now has a more difficult match than they would have had otherwise.

As a Judge, making sure that everyone's playing by the same rules keeps it FAIR, which is rather the point of your job.

The consequence of rules should not be ignorable.

If it's a premiere event:

Enforce the rules. Not only does the TO have a responsibility to enforce the rules, the players themselves have a responsibility to enforce the rules. (Otherwise, whether the rules get enforced or not becomes solely a matter of whether or not a TO is watching (or called over).

If another player -- even a spectator -- sees someone not take the stress from Rebel Captive, the person should speak up. Things that are mandatory are -- wait for it -- mandatory. They should not depend on whim or chance.

That said:

At a fairly recent store championship, I was running Cryodex. I was NOT TOing, but because I was helping out, I was constantly bombarded with questions, and I'd have to stop and respond, "I'm not the TO. Ask your TO." During one of these, I was in the midst of setting the dials for one of my two IG-88s. Distracted, I set the dial down, face-up. When the interruption was concluded, I picked up the other dial and set it, placing it face-down.

My opponent asked if I was ready. Feeling harried (not by him, exactly, by my "I'm not the goddamn TO" status, I said, "Sure."

When my turn came up, my dial -- face-up, remember -- was set to a maneuver that CLEARLY flew me off the board. It cost me the game, though probably not the tourney.

My opponent never even offered to let me change the dial, not even to something he picked that was legal. (That had me wondering if he knew my dial was face-up when he asked if I was ready, but it's also possible that he was only super-douchey after the fact, not before.)

Now I would have offered to the player something like, "I'll set it to something that won't kill you," and if I were TOing, I probably would have suggested something like that.

But that's not the same situation. There were clearly outside factors at play here.

(Did I call the TO? No. I should have, but since I was helping the TO out, I figured it would look like he was just taking my side. And I was SO flabbergasted that my opponent was so clearly willing to win that way that I kinda just turtled up.)

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.)

I didn't see the stream, could you elaborate? Did the Xizor player barrel roll off the board and the TO determined that since he couldn't boost back on, undo the entire action?

Yeah, that's what I recall.Edit: Actually, maybe that wasn't it. (The vagaries of human memory!) Thinking about it more, I believe Xizor focused, then Pushed the Limit to boost, which put him off the board. The TO ruled that the boost failed, and therefore could be unwound, which is contrary to the standing ruling that you can in fact boost or barrel roll off the board. Either that, or it was ruled that it could be undone because it was part of a Push the Limit. Table audio was really quiet, so I couldn't really tell what happened.

That was it. The boost took him off. He should have died right then. The chat was a buzz about the illegal take back. Chat was then told that both players agreed to ignore the rule and let him live contrary to what should have happened and the TO allowed it.

As a TO, it is my duty, not decision, to intervene when I see rules not being enforced. It is part of the role as a TO, and not enforcing rules means I would not be doing my job. It doesn't really matter if it's a premier event or not.

That being said, for larger events, I don't go around every table and watch to see if they are following the rules. For smaller tournaments, I will observe most games briefly just after the round starts. Otherwise, I leave it to both players to know the rules and know when to call over a TO. I can't be the eyes and ears to 32 simultaneous matches. I can however enforce rules mistakes as I encounter them. If I am watching a game and I see a mistake, it is my obligation to correct the mistake.