I'm very used to this sort of thing from a broad miniature war game standpoint. If I might toss my own disposable opinion into the heap, I think this is just something that goes away after getting used to playing games where there's no "grid" or "map" or other hard measurement mechanic in place to tell players how far they can move/shoot/etc. I'm not saying that there are no cheaters. I'm saying I grew more comfortable with managing these situations over the years.

Say I want to tie up as many squadrons with my single squadron as possible. I'll set it down and then measure, with my opponent watching, stating "it looks to me like x, y, and z are engaged". Later on, when he/she tries to move the squadron away, I'll gently remind him/her that we'd already cleared that up and some sort of accident must have occurred to bump the squadron out of place.

Of course, this can't solve every issue, but I think in general playing these miniature war games is an extremely cooperative experience. You should move and position your units while communicating with your opponent and expressing your intent. These cheating concerns really only come up when one player or the other was trying to be secretive about something. Ultimately, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying, "Would you mind double checking that the maneuver tool is properly situated before you pick that ship up," and there's nothing wrong with responding, "sure, please come check before I pick it up that it's in there appropriately".

Except, maybe include as many lame Star Wars movie quotes and references while you're doing it, too. That'll go a long way. My main opponent Dano generally agrees that it feels better to lose a ship to enemy fire if the opponent is "pew pew pew"ing while the dice are rolled.

What I do not get, is how do people who cheat feel about their wins? Its not real. If you cheated you didn't actually win.

I once helped to run a online monthly Jedi Knight tournament. This was back in the days of the MS Gaming zone. Part of what I did was scan though the scores being reported and look for cheaters. Doing that frankly did a great deal of damage to my opinion of mankind as a whole, and taught me a few things.

1) There's two types of cheaters, the smart ones and the ones who get caught. I don't know that I ever caught someone who cheated "just enough" that only added a point or two here and there. The people I caught posted scores like 35-0.

2) They're arrogant enough to believe they're WAY smarter then you. When confronted they'd come up with some of the lamest excuses why the score was like that. Then get mad when you didn't buy it.

So for most cheaters, I think they believe that if they get away with it, then they did in fact win, because you were too stupid to catch them. So they deserved the win, because if you don't get caught you didn't really break the rules.

All of these issues are only issues if you allow them to be issues.

If Squadrons are going to be removed from the table thier position should be marked, engagements/ranges stipulated, and the figures should only be removed when absolutely needed. If you are allowing your opponent to arbitrarily remove and replace Squadrons, you quite frankly are just openning yourself to being abused.

The overextension of the maneuver tool largely goes away once the product is released for purchase as players will be able to construct tools of shorter length. But again, per the rules even, you and your opponent should be stipulating to any estimated movement. Your opponent should not be moving a model in a high traffic area without you also OK'ing the placement.

I don't believe it is any more easy to cheat at this game then other games, from Warmachine to MtG. Cheating will happen, but will only prosper when players let themselves be taken advantage of by not ensuring thier opponents play in an equitable manner.

I'm sorry but I don't really get your point here - I listed a couple arguments which, as you said, require you to use additional accessories to fix them. None of the games you mentioned does have that, aside from the Focus/Fury tokens and counters for WM/H and MtG, but the former has it's own market built around those with official tokens and the latter doesn't care as long as you mark it properly as it doesn't matter all that much. I alone was able to list three or four cases of the game design not being thought-out thoroughly while writing one post and I could probably come up with another one or two, while I can't really do that when it comes to MtG, Warmachine/Hordes or even stupid 40k, which a lot of people bash.

Of course we're more likely to be talking about competitive scene right now - it's obvious that we play different on tournaments and different in beer & pretzels fun match with a friend, but look - if the game didn't have such flaws, there would be no need for position-marking accessories(or even pennies) and/or noone in this thread would be saying "oh, colouring your command dials is a good idea". No game is perfect, as I mentioned, saying that Armada is no more likely to be cheated in than X-Wing is plain malarky, because of stuff like my examples. Can you make similar list of possible cheating openings for X-Wing? Or Warmachine?

Seriously - just go watch an Armada batrep and see for yourself how people who surely don't want to cheat tend to be inaccurate with unit placement and stuff like that (and think how easily compared to many other games it can be exploited), and with fighters FFG could've just given us an official advice on how to mark them (before someone comes up with a witty comment - no, I don't need them to officially say how to do it because I can't figure it myself, read further) just like the 1 speed template being the length of small base, giving you a nice way to mark your ship's position to make the game as accurate and issue-free as possible.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about in regards to Warmachine. Players, for years, have used proxy bases to assist in measuring movement. Many game effects force you to leave markers on the table that were never actually provided by PP. Most players, even casual one, have at the least a number of measurement "widgets" for use in assisting in tight movements/measurements. Most of these items are secondary market items made available through fansites, but in some cases Privateer Press has added those items to thier own accessory catalog. As a result I really have to question your knowledge of that game in regards to your stated inability to come up with examples of exploitable rules.

I can absolutely give similar examples as you've given for Warmachine, X-wing, or even MTG; as you've given for Armada. Other players have already done so. It is comically easy to over measure movement in Warmachine, bump ships in X-wing, or draw extra cards in MTG. That is if your opponent is sleeping on the job and not playing attention to the game.

Unless you are playing a game on a grid you will have to make an effort to ensure proper placement of models. That is a reality of any game which offers, relatively speaking, free form movement. It certainly is not unique to Armada as you state.

SNIP: Winning and keeping score is how we can strive to succeed. The guy who said "winning isn't everything" never won a **** thing. If you are not trying to win, then there is zero point in playing. ...

It really is remarkable how different mentalities are expressed and regarded. Much like the OP, and much like a few posters, I get the argument but it's not as applicable or important to me.

Winning isn't everything to everyone. Someone can go to a tournament with the express purpose of learning from others because they like seeing interesting new ideas. Others can enjoy it because it brings together people who like a game/sport and it's worth it to spend a couple bucks to grab a bite out and enjoy an afternoon. Painting competitions can be the same: you get to see new people and new techniques, the structured nature of it might be coincidental. Camaraderie is the purpose, winning is just part of a structured match parameter. The 'winning is everything' mentality can produce weird lists that don't look like something that would exist 'in-universe'. So, between that and meta-gaming situations that seem illogical, I just don't like participating in tournament events.

But I do love campaigns! It's narrative gaming: the creation of a memorable story is tremendously fun for me, win or lose. Because if I just view it as 'I'm better at measuring out arbitrary distances to little plastic ships/soldiers, and rolling dice to flip cards over. Behold, your new master!', it starts to look really petty and sours my disposition for the rest of the day. Its time that I realize I could have spent learning another language, working overtime, or taking the neighbour's dog out for a run in the woods. Instead, I choose to think up a story...

... A story about a noble Imperial commander of the VSD Dawnguard. He sits on an uncomfortable bunk in the vessels aged quarters, struggling with his own personal demons from past experiences against 'rebel scum' that were motivated to uphold values that were supposed to be exclusively Imperial. A dataslate rests on the bare table next to a half-empty glass of sarmouth brandy; the slate reads 'Base Delta Zero'. He looks at it again, the gazes out the porthole to the cloud-shrouded world below. The captain places it aside and calls an emergency council with his subordinates. It broke with convention, but he needed their support. Over the next hour they reach a consensus.

On the display console of a lone screen at sector command, a single red dot blinks out of existence. VSD Dawnguard's transponder has stopped transmitting. Orders come from the admiralty, a vessel has gone missing near the farthest moon of Osiria: its mission was classified. A task force of Gladiator Star Destroyers is assembled, their navicomputers set. The hastily constructed squadron slips into hyperspace, bound for a world few had ever heard of.

How does the story end? Well, I guess I'm going to push a plastic star destroyer around a table later on and find out. So I'm sorry if I seem dismissive or flippant, but I don't care about cheating or winning as long as I get the experience I want out of the game. I can still win and be miserable about it, just like I can lose and be elated. So, to each their own: for everything else, there's mastercard.

Ahhh good ole DrunkTarkin. He has a point. I do things like stating what's going on every turn. If we have engaged fighters I reiterate it every turn. It may seem like it is annoying but the people I play against don't mind. These are habits formed from games like 40k and Malifaux. They are highly useful

SNIP: Winning and keeping score is how we can strive to succeed. The guy who said "winning isn't everything" never won a **** thing. If you are not trying to win, then there is zero point in playing. ...

It really is remarkable how different mentalities are expressed and regarded. Much like the OP, and much like a few posters, I get the argument but it's not as applicable or important to me.

This is a really hard point to get across without seeming like psycho.

I'll use Hockey as an example because I coach. The end result of winning is not important to me. I would rather loose 3-2 and have my kids try their hardest then win a game 15-0.

If you are not trying to win against me you are always going to lose. And we won't have those great games where I will loose 3-2. And you will get tired of losing and probably stop playing.

Those kids do not skate hard because skating hard is fun. They do it because they want to win. Some of the most exciting games i have been part of I've lost. And I would not trade those games for any amount of wins.

Winning is everything, but the end result is not.

If you are there just for fun and not trying to win, you probably are not building the best fleets, you probably are not making the best decisions to try and win and our game probably won't be fun because you are not doing your best to win.

If I crush your fleet because you are not trying to win, that is not fun for me. If winning is not important then that also means you are not trying to get better or improve at the game. If you don't get better while I do, again you will always lose and I would probably get tired of playing you because its not fun.

Competition is where the fun is. But winning is what fuels competition. Winning at all costs is where the cheaters come in. The end result of winning, and not the fun of competition, is what they are interested in.

If you are doing your best to Win and you think winning is not applicable then you are lying to yourself.

Winning is everything because it fuels competition, which in turn makes the game fun. Its the end result of winning and losing that does not matter as long as both sides tried their best. And you cannot try your best if you are not trying to win, it is impossible.

Competition is where the fun is. But winning is what fuels competition.

I agree with you, but not everyone has the same opinion about what makes a game fun. The problem is, quite often the people who "play for fun" just don't get why people like us play to win.

Beating someone who's playing for the lulz, just isn't that enjoyable. If you can't put up a good fight then I'm not going to get much joy out of the game. The problem is that the person flying for fun isn't likely to get much fun either when he gets crushed.

It's a bit like oil and water, because for those people the answer seems to be 'well just play for fun' but they don't get that for us the fun is in the competitive play. I'm not playing to win, I'm playing to have a fun competitive game, but as you point out, part of a competitive game is a drive to win.

So I can't just "play for fun" because playing for the narrative just isn't that enjoyable to me, or at least if I want that I'd rather get it some place else.

When I'm playing X-Wing or Armada, to me the best part of the game is when I execute exactly the correct maneuver at the correct time, drop my X-Wing on your Tie Interceptors 6 and blow it out of the sky.

On the other hand, when I'm playing Discgolf, I'm not really looking to win, even though I do that from time to time, what I'm doing is looking to play as well as I can. The competition isn't with the other people as much as it is with myself.

[sNIP]. Competition is where the fun is. But winning is what fuels competition.

Hmm... I take issue with the way it's expressed, but I don't think we're actually so far apart. I think that part of this comes down to how we're going to define 'point' and 'objective' along with all those niggling little nuances of the English language. So bear with me, if you would, this is liable to be quite long.

Oh, and there's a TL;DR for others too.

The structure of the game says that I'm working towards completing a mission: said mission will change depending on the objectives involved. However, the enjoyment isn't dictated by meeting those objectives and defeating another opponent (the clichéd comparison is: It's about the journey, not the destination). That doesn't mean that I'm not going to pursue the objective to the fullest in a logical way, but the gratification doesn't come through the victory; as you said, the 15-0 win is pointless compared to a hard fought 3-2 loss. The result doesn't matter: a 3-2 loss vs. a 3-2 win is irrelevant to me so long as the experience was the same.

Thus, I neither want to win nor do I want to lose. I strive to complete the objective only because it gives structure to the match. So in that way, absolutely, I'm going to try to win, and if I have Vader in my fleet, I'm going to try to do it in the most aggressive, hard fought, relentless way possible where I will take every single chance to inflict damage even if it is costly. So in that weird parallel in which I'm going to work myself to the bone to win. But the manner in which I play will have to conform what what I think is reasonable and internally logical: if that involves gaming a system through technicalities (taking an advantage through exploits which are 'rules as written' deficiencies, rather than actually cheating) or setting up in an illogical locked positions to give me an advantage (like the X-wing castling 'bumpercar' mode that was a 'thing' for a while back), then I'm not going to do it. I'm going for the hard-fought method of deploying a workable, feasible fleet formation.

As for building the best fleet, no argument there: if it makes no sense to me, then I'm not going to build it. I'll take an inferior fleet and try my best with it, with full knowledge that it's going to be an uphill battle. Overcoming a tactical deficiency is a fun puzzle, if I can buy my way out of it then where's the fun in that?

Part of this is background: I get where you're coming from because it's the most sane and reasonable way to play a competitive sport/game (I played hockey for years, like a lot of Canadians, and I boxed for years too: there is no subtext... that's for wrestling on TV). And if you're there for a tournament, then you better be trying to win it. However, the caveat is that even with opposition, not everything comes down to a competitive sport: it can be turned into a collaborative experience. By switching the conditions from a tournament to a campaign, we've effectively turned a competitive game into a collaborative game type using the exact same system, objectives, and mechanics. And in such, the game can be workable from both angles.

I'll illustrate with a personal thing: I participate in a weekly D&D game, one in which I'm striving to not die as a character. I'm not at odds with the person running it because they're throwing kobolds my way to kill, capture, or maim my character. I'm merely a participant in a story while the combat mechanics and rolls are a way to create resolution. Armada can be played in the same way, most miniature wargaming can be played this way and/or strictly competitively.

likewise, I have a degree in History (not that it helps with the economy the way it is, go figure, and it's not meant as some supposed mark of superiority). The things that I studied with regards to conflict can meld with escapism and simulation inherent in the appeal of wargaming to create similar new experiences. The emerging story, previous background, established lore, and literary qualities are important. When melded with the game itself, it creates a new flavor much like reading an enjoyable book or acting in a play. My gratification comes from that, so while I'm doing my best to win in a fair and equitable way, the fun is derived from something other than the competitive aspect. When I play a game of chess I'm there to win, when I'm participating in wargaming I'm there to recreate a fictional experience. Incidentally, that's one of the big ways that I define wargaming vs. boardgaming. Wargaming can have the veneer of that even if the mechanics are similar to a boardgame.

So that's sort of the divide, as arbitrary as it is and as confusing as it is. Cheating may mean that my opponent has achieved their 'win' condition before me, but it doesn't hold an absolute relevence over the value I place on the match. That's why I can say 'it doesn't really matter to me'. Likewise, I agree that striving to win has nothing to do with winning at all costs.

TL;DR, enjoyment can be derived differently depending on if you're playing competitively or cooperatively, both are equally applicable with wargaming.

I have yet to find a "best fleet" every one has a weakness and everyone has its strengths. The issue there is ultimately, can your opponents handle that type of list?

SNIP: Winning and keeping score is how we can strive to succeed. The guy who said "winning isn't everything" never won a **** thing. If you are not trying to win, then there is zero point in playing. ...

It really is remarkable how different mentalities are expressed and regarded. Much like the OP, and much like a few posters, I get the argument but it's not as applicable or important to me.

This is a really hard point to get across without seeming like psycho.

I'll use Hockey as an example because I coach. The end result of winning is not important to me. I would rather loose 3-2 and have my kids try their hardest then win a game 15-0.

If you are not trying to win against me you are always going to lose. And we won't have those great games where I will loose 3-2. And you will get tired of losing and probably stop playing.

Those kids do not skate hard because skating hard is fun. They do it because they want to win. Some of the most exciting games i have been part of I've lost. And I would not trade those games for any amount of wins.

Winning is everything, but the end result is not.

If you are there just for fun and not trying to win, you probably are not building the best fleets, you probably are not making the best decisions to try and win and our game probably won't be fun because you are not doing your best to win.

If I crush your fleet because you are not trying to win, that is not fun for me. If winning is not important then that also means you are not trying to get better or improve at the game. If you don't get better while I do, again you will always lose and I would probably get tired of playing you because its not fun.

Competition is where the fun is. But winning is what fuels competition. Winning at all costs is where the cheaters come in. The end result of winning, and not the fun of competition, is what they are interested in.

If you are doing your best to Win and you think winning is not applicable then you are lying to yourself.

Winning is everything because it fuels competition, which in turn makes the game fun. Its the end result of winning and losing that does not matter as long as both sides tried their best. And you cannot try your best if you are not trying to win, it is impossible.

I absolutely agree. And it lets me use one of my favorite Sean Connery quotes...

"Losers always wine about their best. Winners go home and f%#k the prom queen."

All joking aside, if you didn't have a standard to measure to (winning) how can you test to see how far you've come? Ultimately you should be having fun, but getting better at whatever you are doing. Just don't be a sore winner... those people suck.

I'm sure these issues will come out when Armada finally gets some tournament/competitive scene.

You may well be right.

The interesting question is what will serve as the driver for this, will it be that players are caught cheating or playing in an unfair manner or will it be because of some uptight player that has a brain fart because his opponent bumped over a miniature and put it back 5mm off?

As much as I would hate to play a person cheating me, I would probably enjoy playing a person who is questioning my motives in a very negative way, just as much.

This whole cheating discussion bums me out.

Cheaters or people with liberal interpretation of the rules, put your efforts to better yourselves so you do not need to find life satisfaction in a plastic star wars game.

Now that I am plus 40, I just do not understand finding self worth in a game.

Sorry for sounding a bit preachy.

Enjoy this great game, but live life!

I can see it maybe being an issue for all the competitive folks out there that plays this game. I do have to laugh at the idea that most of us that play this game are generally in the age bracket of 20+...I just really pity the person who is an adult who doesn't have the integrity to play an honest game.

I just really pity the person who is an adult who doesn't have the integrity to play an honest game.

This is a flawed statement, not because I think you're wrong. But because it is based on a flawed understanding of why someone cheats.

People who cheat don't generally think they lack in integrity or aren't playing a honest game. They simply believe that if they can get away with it then they're not really breaking the rules. They believe that if the other person doesn't catch them then that means the cheater is in fact the superior player.

Cheaters don't normally feel they're doing anything wrong or suffer guilt because they believe it's not cheating if you don't get caught.

Sort of to turn this around on a lighter note.

I've been accused of cheating because I know the rules to a game really well. I'll get to know the ins and outs of the rules.

Is it my fault people cannot read the rules? But I still get blamed for cheating.

Sort of to turn this around on a lighter note.

I've been accused of cheating because I know the rules to a game really well. I'll get to know the ins and outs of the rules.

Is it my fault people cannot read the rules? But I still get blamed for cheating.

Like I get accused for WAAC just because I enforced rules

I have too. It again speaks to the difference in mindset I think. To some people playing by the rules as written is a sign of WAAC because you're trying to use the rules as way to give you an edge. The fact that playing with RAW is the only way for both people to truly play fairly doesn't seem to occur to them.

I'm sure part of this is because they tend to try and do things that the rules don't allow and it seems like we're using the rules as a weapon to thwart their plans. It happens with a friend of mine. I know the rules and I'm teaching them to him. He knows I'm not trying to cheat or anything, but sometimes it seems like every time he comes up with a great idea I tell him it can't be done because that's now how the rules work.

I just don't get how playing by the rules would give one an edge. Isn't that just making the playing field even between both players?

Isn't that just making the playing field even between both players?

For the most part yes. But there is an actual advantage in knowing the rules better then someone else. That's why a 'vet' will beat a newbie so bad most times, because the newbie doesn't know what all the options he or she has.

But for most people it's a perception thing I think. They feel like you're using the rules against them, because you rarely see the guy who knows the rules try to do something and have someone else say 'no the rules don't let you do that.'

So their wonderful plan just fell apart, because the other guy is using the rules to beat them.

The can lead to someone to feel like the other person just wants to WAAC, because if it were just a friendly game, then the rules aren't all that important. The ironic thing is, if winning truly doesn't matter then why should that person get upset that they couldn't do what they wanted to?

In X-Wing this has lead to the term Militantly Casual, someone who behaves almost exactly like the WAAC jerk, but does so because people aren't playing casually enough.

****Story time, long and only semi-meaningful****

A year maybe 2 ago, I got into a rather heated discussion with someone on the X-Wing rules boards. In X-Wing ships move in PS order, lowest to highest. He had gotten into the habit of moving all his PS X ships at the same time. So if he had 4 PS1 Tie Fighters, he'd move all 4, then take actions for all 4. This is clearly against the rules, there's really not even a grey area that would could be interpreted to allow this. The rules state that you move a ship, take the ships action then move on to the next ship.

I was accused of being a WAAC rules lawyer when I pointed out he was breaking the rules. That while in a casual game someone might be ok with it some of the times. It was not allowed by the rules.

He tried to claim he only did it when it didn't matter, and since it didn't give him an advantage then he should be allowed to do it. I pointed out the rules are clear, and don't say 'if you don't get an advantage' you can do that.

Well eventually he started in with the name calling, accusing me of 'interpreting the rules in the strictest possible sense' Because apparently expecting people to play by the pain text of the rules is the strictest possible sense. He finally said that if anyone wouldn't let him play like that, he'd flip the table and start throwing punches. That was when he was banned I believe.

But he's an example of what we came to call the militant casual.

***End of story***

So what you have are people who actually want to play strictly by the "rules", but not always the rules in the rulebook, but rather by the 'spirit of the game' and the rules as intended.

****Story time, long and only semi-meaningful****

A year maybe 2 ago, I got into a rather heated discussion with someone on the X-Wing rules boards. In X-Wing ships move in PS order, lowest to highest. He had gotten into the habit of moving all his PS X ships at the same time. So if he had 4 PS1 Tie Fighters, he'd move all 4, then take actions for all 4. This is clearly against the rules, there's really not even a grey area that would could be interpreted to allow this. The rules state that you move a ship, take the ships action then move on to the next ship.

I was accused of being a WAAC rules lawyer when I pointed out he was breaking the rules. That while in a casual game someone might be ok with it some of the times. It was not allowed by the rules.

He tried to claim he only did it when it didn't matter, and since it didn't give him an advantage then he should be allowed to do it. I pointed out the rules are clear, and don't say 'if you don't get an advantage' you can do that.

Well eventually he started in with the name calling, accusing me of 'interpreting the rules in the strictest possible sense' Because apparently expecting people to play by the pain text of the rules is the strictest possible sense. He finally said that if anyone wouldn't let him play like that, he'd flip the table and start throwing punches. That was when he was banned I believe.

lol, I remeber that thread/discussion

Well that sort of happened to me. The guy who accused me of WAAC was mad because I had measured his fighters after deployment (so I have an idea of how far they were) and found them to be a past range 2. Since within means completely within I told him this. He then became flustered moved them, checked them for the first time (he did not check after I pointed it out originally) and then told me he would not play me because "I took the fun out of the game".

This tossed me for a loop

and then told me he would not play me because "I took the fun out of the game".

Sounds like the type of person you're better off never playing again. Because he's going to react like that, to something that simple something worse is bound to happen once the game starts.

Often I think it's people were either burned by, or much more likely heard horror stories about 40k types who would pull out a rule from a 4 year old White Dwarf mag, and use it destroy your plans. Such a thing does in fact happen, but is fairly rare. But it seems lots of people hear about it, and some of them expect everyone to play like that.

So as soon as you pull out any sort of rule they jump to the conclusion that you're going to be one of those types.

Well that sort of happened to me. The guy who accused me of WAAC was mad because I had measured his fighters after deployment (so I have an idea of how far they were) and found them to be a past range 2. Since within means completely within I told him this. He then became flustered moved them, checked them for the first time (he did not check after I pointed it out originally) and then told me he would not play me because "I took the fun out of the game".

This tossed me for a loop

Ha, I always loved that one. Playing by the rules takes the "Fun" out of the game.

Well then, since the rules are just arbitrary or a guide line, I'll just start my VSD right behind you. You won't mind will you?

Well that sort of happened to me. The guy who accused me of WAAC was mad because I had measured his fighters after deployment (so I have an idea of how far they were) and found them to be a past range 2.

What's wrong with thank you I didn't realise the rule <moves fighters back a bit and correctly places them> and plays on.

I do have issue with a player watching another player make a mistake and then delay the process of correcting the problem to make it penalise the other player. For example my regular opponent often picks up his second squadron before finishing the actions of the first. So I get him to go back and finish the first unit off, waiting for him to move the 4th squadron and then not allow him to shoot the 1st, 2nd and 3rd would come accoss as rather unkind.

Keep in mind here there is a place and time clause in effect. At Worlds it would be a harsh lesson, in a social game against a beginer I would suggest you are breaking the rule of Wheaton. After some games (I leave the actual count to you) then maybe a harsh lesson is needed.

I'm sure these issues will come out when Armada finally gets some tournament/competitive scene.

You may well be right.

The interesting question is what will serve as the driver for this, will it be that players are caught cheating or playing in an unfair manner or will it be because of some uptight player that has a brain fart because his opponent bumped over a miniature and put it back 5mm off?

As much as I would hate to play a person cheating me, I would probably enjoy playing a person who is questioning my motives in a very negative way, just as much.

Well, DUH and/or hello!

I mean... everyone knows there are nitpicking assbutts who ask you a billion times to do the move again in X-Wing on tournaments and even then ask a judge to watch you do it again. Or measure arcs a bajillion times themselves before asking a judge to make a call, so it's obviously just as unpleasant playing against people like that.

Again - it's not about being an uptight nazi about it - most people can use common sense and know that even with marked position it can shift a couple milimeters, but I'm talking about a real situation when you feel like the opponent is cheating. If you believe that you're a rational person and are convinced that you are being cheated because he marvelously ended up in range/out of your range after putting his ship back on the table even though you're sure he didn't, you are free to express your concerns.

There's a rule of thumb in my city (probably all of Poland) that if there's a conflict in which neither side can prove that they're right, it's resolved in favour of the one that would get affected negatively by it. If you're both not sure if he is in your arc and can't check it reliably, then you act like he isn't. This way he won't feel like you're WAAC-ing and you can just assume that he wasn't in your arc - tough luck.

Of course that takes a lot of decency and a moral compass, but if you claim to be a reasonable, mature person then you should make calls that won't take away your opponent's fun when there's a conflict over such stuff.

As for the co-conversation here - it's a competitive game - people play to win, even if it's a casual game. I mean... you're here to fight your opponent, not hold hands and fly your ships together into the sunset. You know, there is a whole range of players between fluffy bunny and WAAC jerk and even if it's a friendly game it's a game against each other.