I guess it isn't a matter of being ruffless, just in an environment where choices are available I prefer to let things play out naturally, then give a recap unless I know there are mandatory effects that must be played.

I always help my opponent as best I can. Weither it's friendly or a tournament. Especially when i face Chirenau/Echo lists this goes in my favour, and the ones playing them forgets lot's of things. One I beat, and he did not feel snubbed, getting a rewind from me so that he could decloak. The other one forfited a win against me, because I saved his phantom with lots of manouver tips when he was about to fly of the board, later I gave him a dice bag I won in a store championship, he had helped me to first place, so I had lots of other prizes to gobble over because of the fair play attitude we showed each other.

Where, in the tournament rules, is it printed that you must remind your opponent about their mandatory effects?

I try to when I see they haven't used them.

Hell, i've reminded enemies that they've missed a unit firing at me in 40K before.

Just good sportsmanship.

I try to when I see they haven't used them.

Hell, i've reminded enemies that they've missed a unit firing at me in 40K before.

Just good sportsmanship.

Playing your opponent's upgrade cards for them has nothing to do with sportsmanship.

I try to when I see they haven't used them.

Hell, i've reminded enemies that they've missed a unit firing at me in 40K before.

Just good sportsmanship.

Playing your opponent's upgrade cards for them has nothing to do with sportsmanship.

Really though. Not playing them at all. it's more like "hey dude, ebfore you end your turn - you do know your terminators haven't fired yet, right?"

Or when teaching my wingman phantoms "hey dude, phantoms decloak here now, and you can do this, this or this".

I help my opponent all the time. I've never played for them.

Generally speaking if it's a 'may' trigger then I won't remind them, if it's a strict trigger and I notice it then I'll always remind them. I never cheat.

But if players are forgetting their own upgrade cards, or tokens then that's not my fault. They included those cards in their list for a reason, and they chose ships with those actions - it's not my fault if they're not thinking about that sort of stuff.

Being aware of your own list, ships and upgrades and what it can do in certain situations is a big part of the game. Being sharp on that stuff is part of being good at the game.

I will always remind them as it's good sportsmanship.

I had a guy at regional convinced that I had gunner on my falcon, I only had the droids. I'd shoot and he'd roll his evades if he didn't roll out he'd take a damage instead of spending his evade token. I'd tell him I don't have gunner you can dodge it and he would. After the 3rd time though I just kept letting him take the 1 damage because he still kept thinking I had gunner.

I think that's fair enough, it's not as if you didn't remind him a couple times.

It's nice to give your opponents a reminder in friendly games, keeps things sociable and fun.

Then again if it's happening EVERY turn then you need to learn your cards son.

That is just the most blatant strawman I read here in months.

Has 'strawman' become just a convenient term for an argument you disagree with?

Has 'strawman' become just a convenient term for an argument you disagree with?

Sometimes I think so. It does seem to be a way to try and dismiss someone's argument without actually you know countering it in any way.

In this case it was a straw man. Guy straight up accused me of playing another guys cards.

In this case it was a straw man. Guy straight up accused me of playing another guys cards.

And that's a strawman how? Because if I have to not only remember everything my list can do but make sure the other guy is playing optimally and taking advantage of all his options, then you are in a way playing both sides.

That is just the most blatant strawman I read here in months.

Has 'strawman' become just a convenient term for an argument you disagree with?

A strawman argument is made when someone completely misrepresents what someone else said and uses that misrepresentation as the object for critique. For example, I'd use a strawman against you if I had replied with something like "I have not accused everyone of strawmanning all the time!" or something to that effect.

Strawman arguments happen a lot because it's not very easy to honestly represent what someone else is saying. As a matter of fact, fallacious reasoning of many kinds can be seen in most discussions. I like scouring the letters section of newspapers and spot the fallacies: tu quoque, post hoc ergo propter hoc, poisoning the well, but also formal ones like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

And on the internet I see strawmen a lot, mostly because of the "I don't really understand what you're saying but I know I disagree" attitude. This one was just too obvious to pass.

Also: take note of the 'fallacy fallacy'. Just because some line of reasoning is fallacious, doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. It's just not warranted.

Has 'strawman' become just a convenient term for an argument you disagree with?

Sometimes I think so. It does seem to be a way to try and dismiss someone's argument without actually you know countering it in any way.

And that's where the 'fallacy fallacy' comes in - you don't actually counter the conclusion by pointing out that some argument is fallacious. The conclusion could still be true.

In this case it was a straw man. Guy straight up accused me of playing another guys cards.

And that's a strawman how? Because if I have to not only remember everything my list can do but make sure the other guy is playing optimally and taking advantage of all his options, then you are in a way playing both sides.

Optimally? No-one said optimally.

Now and again a helpful - oh hey by the way... is just being decent, granted it's situational. If there is a reason not to shoot then i probably won't say shoot. Now and again pointing out they haven't used their action saves on problems later (rewinds suck).

It's a straw man argument because my comment was taken to mean a fair more aggressive use of "by the way" than was intended therefore invalidated. 'dude, you might want to' becomes 'dude, do this'.

Actually, I'm not sure what to agree with here. Sometimes it's good to remind an opponent of a card, but I don't do that always. I can imagine not saying anything during a tournamen, but then again, how serious are these events?

A strawman argument is made when someone completely misrepresents what someone else said and uses that misrepresentation as the object for critique. For example, I'd use a strawman against you if I had replied with something like "I have not accused everyone of strawmanning all the time!" or something to that effect.

Strawman arguments happen a lot because it's not very easy to honestly represent what someone else is saying. As a matter of fact, fallacious reasoning of many kinds can be seen in most discussions. I like scouring the letters section of newspapers and spot the fallacies: tu quoque, post hoc ergo propter hoc, poisoning the well, but also formal ones like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

And on the internet I see strawmen a lot, mostly because of the "I don't really understand what you're saying but I know I disagree" attitude. This one was just too obvious to pass.

Also: take note of the 'fallacy fallacy'. Just because some line of reasoning is fallacious, doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. It's just not warranted.

So, according to your logic, misrepresenting a strawman as a simple misrepresentation, rather than a separate and unrelated argument set up simply to be knocked down, is itself a strawman. Funny, but not entirely accurate.

What's being debated here is whether it's bad form to not remind your opponent of his triggers. Many, including myself, would assert that your opponent's triggers are his responsibility and his alone, and making any attempt to assist your opponent is actually playing both sides of the board. That's not an unrelated argument, that is the argument. According to traditional definitions, that's not a strawman. I wouldn't even consider that a simple misrepresentation, not with the poorest of argumentative framing.

And on the internet I see strawmen a lot, mostly because of the "I don't really understand what you're saying but I know I disagree" attitude. This one was just too obvious to pass.

I don't want to derail this too much but... The same could be said for you, so your calling it a strawman could actually be a strawman itself.

I personally can see the logic in what he said. If I'm expected to remind the other person of every option they have and according to some even point out when they are making tactical mistakes, there's not much difference between that and me playing both sides.

Myself, I'll remind someone of something they forgot in friendly games once or twice, but that's about it. For a tournament game or even league nights, I expect the other person to know their list and play it without outside help.

This 'I want to beat them at their best' is IMO flawed logic, because you remind someone of something you aren't beating them at their best, you're beating them at a level above their best.

I find that a strange argument for a board with the motto "fly casual". If i say oh hey you can have a free action because XYZ, as a reminder for example my opponent doesn't need to take the free action. My opponent indeed doesn't need to take my advise at all.

The argument I find can vary depending on situation and even reasoning. I play way more casual than tourney, typically against less experienced friends - so yeah I'll remind of rules. I do this in 40K too. No-ones taken any issue. Some times I try to keep on the ball in x-wing because i really want to avoid rewinds, and want to make sure everything is A-ok before moving on with a round. Because backing up and retracing steps (again, casual) is more effort than the moral decision to let someone know of their cards.

I have to posit that reminding someone of their stuff, is most definitely not playing anything for them by any means.

I'd also like to expand on that by pointing out that rule and card reminders aside, everyone turns their own dials, moves their own pieces and rolls their own DIE.

Is it really an issue to be pointing out the minutia now and again?

I have to posit that reminding someone of their stuff, is most definitely not playing anything for them by any means..

Would you posit that remembering triggers and not making mistakes is part of the skill of the game?

Of course it's a part of skill to the game, memorizing rules is part of all games.

In a casual environment however it's generally accepted that people tend to forget the odd rule. In no way is a quick 'hey by the way...' a big deal.

Now doing it every single bloody time, sure fine. Yeah you can only be nice so much.

I can see your manner as being appropriate for high level tourneys in a play to win environment. But for casual gaming, nah that stinks.