Okay, to address this "hypothetical"...

In football, it's not illegal to have 12 men on the field until the ball is snapped. If you hustle the extra guy off before that, hey, dumb mistake, but not a foul.

Setting every single ship up backwards is the equivalent. The game hasn't started yet. There is no game state to disrupt. So tell your opponent to turn their ships around and start the game.

Wrong. The game has started as soon as people start placing ships and objects.

Say an NHL game begins and the clock starts. If one team has six players on the ice, they are going to get the penalty one second in. The ref isn't gonna stop the clock to remind the team are they? No. They will call them on it.

Setting every single ship up backwards is the equivalent.

Plus that's not even the equivalent of what the OP brought up. Setting up all your ships backwards isn't really a in game mistake, it's closer as you said to a 12th man on the field.

In that case the case of ships facing the wrong way, the game is over as soon as it starts, there was effectively no game played at all. That person had zero chance to win the game.

This is not the same thing as flying one of your ships, even if it's 60% of your list off the table on turn 2.

I have to disagree. The person had the exact same chance of winning the game as you or anyone else in the event. All they had to do was not be sloppy and place their ships the proper way.

I have to disagree.

Feel free. As I said, the answer is up to each person. I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't do.

I'm of the opinion that the game never really happened, and the guy had zero chance of winning since the game was over before anyone really did anything. So I'd be inclined to let him rotate his ships and start the game from there.

But if you wouldn't, that's your call. No one, including the person you're playing has any right question your character or anything if that was your decision.

Your question is too far out there.

You underestimate yourself and the others. If you were intelligent enough to type anything coherent in response, the you are capable of imagining this scenario. How likely it is has nothing to do with you ability to use your imagination.

Besides, it is an exceptionally simple question. Imaging you won Worlds as a result of each of your opponents accidentally deploying backward. What would that win mean to you?

I actually DID provide you with an answer, which you omitted from your quote. I did use my imagination and the answer was that I instantly didn't even think about the win, instead I was in a mental institution because I had lost my mind.

But I'll do you one better. Suppose I do win, simply by placing all my ships forward and all of my opponents are so inept, that they face ALL of their ships backward. That would be a HUGE victory. HUGE. It would mean that I am the best in the world at X-Wing. It would also mean that I now have the opportunity to spread my knowledge of the game to people all over the world, and probably mean that I'm the smartest man on the planet.

Consider the final four - Myself and 3 others. Each of those people who faced me had all of their ships faced to go off the board. These people, who had beaten legions of other people to get to this point, ... who were arguably 3 of the best 4 X-Wing players in the world, had risen to their ranks while not figuring out how to properly play the game. In this hypothetical case, I would have a HUGE knowledge advantage over Ever. Single. Person who plays the game. I'd be the absolute best at strategy, in that I win every match by deploying my ships properly.

My opponent's strategy would simply be to have the highest possible pilot skill, and try to have the lowest possible initiative bid so they can opt to move last. This might mean they chose Soontir Fel with Veteran Instincts, and zero other ships. this way, anything else they face, will HAVE to move first, and thus, fly off the board first, and thus, Soontir would win. In the final round, I'll move my ships forward - my opponent gasps in amazement, then flies Soontir off the board. We shake hands.... my opponent is in tears because my profound wisdom has taught her to think outside the box of the "meta" at the time.

I then go on to write articles for FFG, design a card, and even get a rules insert published into new core sets that remind players to point their ships forward. I would change the entire world of X-Wing this way. Instead of a culture of games that last 30 second.... now players around the entire planet are actually PLAYING the game! It's a gosh Darned revolution!

There is your answer.

I have to disagree.

Feel free. As I said, the answer is up to each person. I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't do.

I'm of the opinion that the game never really happened, and the guy had zero chance of winning since the game was over before anyone really did anything. So I'd be inclined to let him rotate his ships and start the game from there.

But if you wouldn't, that's your call. No one, including the person you're playing has any right question your character or anything if that was your decision.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. In X-Wing, the time does not begin *after* setup. The TO says "Okay everyone, time starts...NOW!" And this is when the game begins. Players take turns placing objects, and then they place their ships.

And saying they had zero chance of winning is a lie because once again, they had the same chance of winning as anyone in the event. The fact that they killed this chance is their problem.

Then you are not umderstanding the point of the hypothetical, which is to show that you aren't thinking. You value the meaning of the win but would hold someone to flying off om the first turn due to deploying backward? That is even more rediculous than the hypothetical.

The hypothetical is so ridiculous that it invites ridiculous answers. If I'm playing at a competitive event and all of my opponents decide to deploy their ships backwards, knowingly or not, looks like it wasn't my day to make the mistakes and I'm going to take the win and have a great day. Then after the game if my opponent was so inclined I would show them their mistake to increase their understanding of the game.

Also - for the love of all things holy and sacred, if you're going to be attempting advanced sentence structure and engage in some good ole' ad hominum action, then at least spell correctly, for your own sake if not mine.

Ridiculous hypotheticals are often the best way to test a conclusion. If you can't wrap your head around the hypothetical, then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, my phone begs for your forgiveness. I logged in on the computer just to type this out properly for you. In the future, if I am engaging in ad hominem action, I will be more careful.

And saying they had zero chance of winning is a lie because once again

What I said is not a lie. You may disagree with me, but that is not the same thing as me stating something that is deliberately deceptive or untrue.

Yes, he could of set the ships up correctly in the first place. But in this nonsense hypothetical he didn't. So the game was lost the moment it started, because nothing that player does can result any outcome other than a 200-0 loss for them.

Ridiculous hypotheticals are often the best way to test a conclusion.

No, the only point of those is for fishing for the answer you want.

Then you are not umderstanding the point of the hypothetical, which is to show that you aren't thinking. You value the meaning of the win but would hold someone to flying off om the first turn due to deploying backward? That is even more rediculous than the hypothetical.

The hypothetical is so ridiculous that it invites ridiculous answers. If I'm playing at a competitive event and all of my opponents decide to deploy their ships backwards, knowingly or not, looks like it wasn't my day to make the mistakes and I'm going to take the win and have a great day. Then after the game if my opponent was so inclined I would show them their mistake to increase their understanding of the game.

Also - for the love of all things holy and sacred, if you're going to be attempting advanced sentence structure and engage in some good ole' ad hominum action, then at least spell correctly, for your own sake if not mine.

Ridiculous hypotheticals are often the best way to test a conclusion. If you can't wrap your head around the hypothetical, then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, my phone begs for your forgiveness. I logged in on the computer just to type this out properly for you. In the future, if I am engaging in ad hominem action, I will be more careful.

An even better way to prove a point though is with facts. You have just been throwing around wild hypotheticals, while others have been stating actual facts.

Ridiculous hypotheticals are often the best way to test a conclusion.

No, the only point of those is for fishing for the answer you want.

An even better way to prove a point though is with facts. You have just been throwing around wild hypotheticals, while others have been stating actual facts.

This is a question of opinions. What relevant facts do you think are missing or would be helpful?

Your hypothetical has already been answered. It would be a tremendous victory.

it is your problem.

The fact that you you created a nonsense situation solely for the sake of getting the answer you wanted, and are getting called on it, is not my problem it's yours.

And saying they had zero chance of winning is a lie because once again

You may want to look up the word lie, because what I said is not a lie. You may disagree with me, but that is not the same thing as me stating something that is deliberately deceptive or untrue.

Yes, he could of set the ships up correctly in the first place. But in this nonsense hypothetical he didn't. So the game was lost the moment it started, because nothing that player does can result any outcome other than a 200-0 loss for them.

It is a lie because they had the same chance as everyone else. Your response even proves this. You said "yes they could have placed their ships correctly in the first place." Well, if they had, it wouldn't have been an auto loss for them then would it? Therefore, they still had a chance to win (the same chance as all the players) however they simply blew it.

On second thought... I'm not going to get involved in a back and forth that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Ridiculous hypotheticals are often the best way to test a conclusion.

No, the only point of those is for fishing for the answer you want.

Boo hoo. The fact that you can't reconcile you stated conclusion in the face of a hypothetical designed to test it is your problem.

An even better way to prove a point though is with facts. You have just been throwing around wild hypotheticals, while others have been stating actual facts.

This is a question of opinions. What relevant facts do you think are missing or would be helpful?

Like when an actual game begins for starters.

Ridiculous hypotheticals are often the best way to test a conclusion.

"Man, I like pizza!" isn't a statement that's disproved by "AHA BUT WHAT IF YOU HAD TO EAT PIZZA LITERALLY EVERY SECOND OF EVERY DAY FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFE?????????"* Congratulations, you've proved that "I value winning more than the process of winning" isn't a rock-solid moral absolute that people cannot even envision a scenario where it might not apply. Yeah? And? So? What? It has zero bearing on the subject at hand.

* - Actually, I might be up for that.

I actually want to expound on something in my above post.

The reason why IMO we have these discussions so often and have the same people saying the same things, is because of a diametrically opposed foundational view of X-Wing and perhaps games in general.

One camp tends to be of same opinion that I have. I'd rather lose than win because the other guy helped me. The other camp tends to be of the opinion that they would rather lose than win because the other guy made a mistake.

If I set my dial wrong on turn 2 and flew my 60 point fan Han off the table. I'd never accept the offer of letting me keep it, I'd rather lose than win with the * that letting me keep it would be.

But other people feel the opposite, they view winning when the other guy flys his chubby Chewie off the table on turn 2 to taint the win for them.

There is quite frankly no way to reconcile these opinions. So it becomes a huge issue when the second type of player makes a mistake that they'd forgive themselves but they're playing the first type. It's not a matter of poor sportsmanship, because the way the first type would behave doesn't change depending on who made the mistake. But it's understandable why the second type has issues, because what they consider fair, is not the same for both players.

Now if you're the type of player who expects to be forgiven of your mistakes, but pounces on the mistakes of others... Then that is the epitome of a poor sport.

Considering I've seen these types of arguements before, it is very, very much an issue with gaming in general, not just this game.

it is very, very much an issue with gaming in general, not just this game.

Yeah I imagine that it's an issue in almost any type of competitive game. I remember it being a point of discussion in MtG, the whole idea of tournament decks vs funzies decks and the like.

So you're saying that because "there's nothing at stake", people have a free ride to be careless with their dials?

Nooo! That's not at all what I'm saying.

What I'm asking is why someone would let it slide in a casual game, but not at a tournament?

Like this guy:

At a National event, yah, I'd probably fly it off the board...

Casual games, certainly let him change it!

Is the prize at stake really worth so much that you'd change the way you'd play?

I see it time and time again. "I'd never let that happen in a tournament, but in a casual game it's no big deal".

The standard you hold people to in casual games is the same standard you should hold people to in competitive games. Because the rewards for winning a competitive game are not so high that they should change the way you play.

I'm a casual gamer. But I never ask nor expect favours from my opponents when I make mistakes, because it's not fair to ask my opponent to forgive something that he doesn't have to. He might want to, and my opponents often do want to forgive. Sure, take that action you forgot, they say. But the choice should be 100% theirs with no obligation put on them from me. And at the same time I'm more than happy to be forgiving myself. We've all got limits as to how kind and forgiving we want to be, though. No one wants to just throw the game in the first turn to give their opponent a crushing victory. Likewise, I don't think anyone would force an opponent to fly their ship off the board in the first turn if they accidentally deployed it backwards. We all fall somewhere in between on the spectrum of 'adherence to the rules'. We've all got our own interpretations of what is acceptable and what isn't, and the point of this discussion isn't some **** waving contest of 'my interpretation is more valid than yours!'

My point is that wherever on the spectrum you fall, however kind or generous or ruthless you want to be, you should always stay true to that. Deliberately being more relaxed when there are no prizes on the line tells me that you value the prizes more than you value other things.

That if nothing were on the line, you'd act differently, but because you might have a chance to win some plastic or cardboard, you're going to act this way...

That's not something to be proud of.

If you can stand up with your hand on your heart and say that you always maintain the same level of generosity, no matter what's at stake during the game, then that is something to be proud of.

You misunderstand me, it is not about the prizes, it is about the expectation to adhere to the rules in a casual game vs sanctioned tournament. In a tournament, and 90% of casual games, I expect myself to adhere to the rule of "your ship moves the dial you chose, no matter the consequence", so I hold my opponent to the same level.

However, in casual play, many times the purpose is to test out a list's strengths FOR tournament play. I would make exceptions for casual play solely so there is continued value in playing that match. It really adds no gain for no reason, and would just cause the player to waste his time. Casual play isn't always about wits vs wits, but fun for fun's sake, or for list experience sake. Now, there are non-tournament games where you REALLY are trying to best another player, and it is expected that all rules are adhered to, and it isn't for a purpose of testing a list or just hanging out, but for having some sort of bragging rights that you won. I would not lump these into the list of "casual games" where we'd chum around and make each other fix mistakes like forgotten tokens.

In a battle of wits, any decision or choice a player makes within the rules should count as fair game, and we really shouldn't be made to feel bad for adhering to this mindset!

I wonder, is this an issue in Chess? A player moves his piece, forgets that it is in place to prevent the checkmate, then gets checkmated, and the (small) audience boo's the player who won? I just have a feeling that it isn't.

I understand what you are saying, though, Chucknuckle, integrity is very important. However, life is full of so many different situations and people and feelings that I think having the flexibility to change views is just as important. I think I disagree that we need to try and lump situations together and force ourselves to react the exact same way to each one.

This thread is now about Pizza.

So you're saying that because "there's nothing at stake", people have a free ride to be careless with their dials?

Nooo! That's not at all what I'm saying.

What I'm asking is why someone would let it slide in a casual game, but not at a tournament?

Like this guy:

At a National event, yah, I'd probably fly it off the board...

Casual games, certainly let him change it!

Is the prize at stake really worth so much that you'd change the way you'd play?

I see it time and time again. "I'd never let that happen in a tournament, but in a casual game it's no big deal".

The standard you hold people to in casual games is the same standard you should hold people to in competitive games. Because the rewards for winning a competitive game are not so high that they should change the way you play.

I'm a casual gamer. But I never ask nor expect favours from my opponents when I make mistakes, because it's not fair to ask my opponent to forgive something that he doesn't have to. He might want to, and my opponents often do want to forgive. Sure, take that action you forgot, they say. But the choice should be 100% theirs with no obligation put on them from me. And at the same time I'm more than happy to be forgiving myself. We've all got limits as to how kind and forgiving we want to be, though. No one wants to just throw the game in the first turn to give their opponent a crushing victory. Likewise, I don't think anyone would force an opponent to fly their ship off the board in the first turn if they accidentally deployed it backwards. We all fall somewhere in between on the spectrum of 'adherence to the rules'. We've all got our own interpretations of what is acceptable and what isn't, and the point of this discussion isn't some **** waving contest of 'my interpretation is more valid than yours!'

My point is that wherever on the spectrum you fall, however kind or generous or ruthless you want to be, you should always stay true to that. Deliberately being more relaxed when there are no prizes on the line tells me that you value the prizes more than you value other things.

That if nothing were on the line, you'd act differently, but because you might have a chance to win some plastic or cardboard, you're going to act this way...

That's not something to be proud of.

If you can stand up with your hand on your heart and say that you always maintain the same level of generosity, no matter what's at stake during the game, then that is something to be proud of.

You misunderstand me, it is not about the prizes, it is about the expectation to adhere to the rules in a casual game vs sanctioned tournament. In a tournament, and 90% of casual games, I expect myself to adhere to the rule of "your ship moves the dial you chose, no matter the consequence", so I hold my opponent to the same level.

However, in casual play, many times the purpose is to test out a list's strengths FOR tournament play. I would make exceptions for casual play solely so there is continued value in playing that match. It really adds no gain for no reason, and would just cause the player to waste his time. Casual play isn't always about wits vs wits, but fun for fun's sake, or for list experience sake. Now, there are non-tournament games where you REALLY are trying to best another player, and it is expected that all rules are adhered to, and it isn't for a purpose of testing a list or just hanging out, but for having some sort of bragging rights that you won. I would not lump these into the list of "casual games" where we'd chum around and make each other fix mistakes like forgotten tokens.

In a battle of wits, any decision or choice a player makes within the rules should count as fair game, and we really shouldn't be made to feel bad for adhering to this mindset!

I wonder, is this an issue in Chess? A player moves his piece, forgets that it is in place to prevent the checkmate, then gets checkmated, and the (small) audience boo's the player who won? I just have a feeling that it isn't.

I understand what you are saying, though, Chucknuckle, integrity is very important. However, life is full of so many different situations and people and feelings that I think having the flexibility to change views is just as important. I think I disagree that we need to try and lump situations together and force ourselves to react the exact same way to each one.

I don't believe anyone was arguing that integrity isn't important. It is very important. However, if the Red Baron himself took off the wrong way and smacked into a building or intended to veer left during a dogfight and actually veered right instead by mistake and hit another plane dead on, integrity has very little to do with the end result.

A player moves his piece, forgets that it is in place to prevent the checkmate, then gets checkmated, and the (small) audience boo's the player who won? I just have a feeling that it isn't.

Well... You can't actually move a piece that would put you in check, the rules don't allow for it. So if my pawn is the blocking your queen, I can't move the pawn.

But the point is valid. In chess, once you touch a piece you have to move it, and no one is going to say anything when someone is forced to make a bad move because they touched the wrong piece.

I think I disagree that we need to try and lump situations together and force ourselves to react the exact same way to each one.

Yeah. You can't try to claim that everyone should play the game the same way every time. That's really just stupid.

I would approach the game differently if I was teaching someone, then I would if they were just new, and differently then I'd look at it playing a friend. I'd look at it differently if I was at a tournament then if I was testing lists.

A player moves his piece, forgets that it is in place to prevent the checkmate, then gets checkmated, and the (small) audience boo's the player who won? I just have a feeling that it isn't.

Well... You can't actually move a piece that would put you in check, the rules don't allow for it. So if my pawn is the blocking your queen, I can't move the pawn.

But the point is valid. In chess, once you touch a piece you have to move it, and no one is going to say anything when someone is forced to make a bad move because they touched the wrong piece.

Hehe, I was thinking like "I have a pawn in place to prevent a series of moves that (unspokenly) both my opponent and I realize will lead to my checkmate, but for one turn, I forget that I put that pawn there for this reason, and the inevitable series of moves that lead to my downfall take place".

and the inevitable series of moves that lead to my downfall take place.

Ahh I see. Well in that case good point. Because yes that is kinda the same thing.

I wonder if because X-Wing appeals to a larger group then some other war games is the reason some of these things is discussed.

For example, I remember some time ago, someone trying to claim that the order of activation really doesn't matter. That since there's no real harm in moving your swarm together then there's no reason you can't do it.

Now putting aside the very suspect nature of that argument... For most other games, if you tried to claim such a thing you'd be laughed off the board, following the proper order of activation is never a suggestion it's a hard and fast rule that can not be ignored or bent because it may be easier.

Likewise as you point out in chess, if someone makes a mistake and everyone can see it, no one would ever expect the other player to allow them to change their mind. Or as I mentioned change what piece the move after they touch it.

I get that part of it, is a reaction to how things went in 40k. But it seems some people really think the rules are just suggestions, and that's not something I've seen in other games.

Is the prize at stake really worth so much that you'd change the way you'd play?

It has little to do with the prize and everything to do with the why.

If I'm playing for fun I'll be more forgiving, because I'm not playing competitively. If however I'm playing competitively, then I'll play more strictly by the rules. What if any prizes happen to be on the line doesn't matter.

So you're saying you don't have fun when you play competitively? Are the two mutually exclusive for you?

What matters is the point behind the game. Am I just killing time, or am I involved in a competitive event where both sides are doing their best to win fairly?

Oft quoted:

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused.

I honestly do not understand the disconnect. Why play differently when there is only such a small thing on the line?

Imagine if other competitive events behaved like the militant casual - "Oh the Patriots were off-sides? No prob we'll decline the penalty, we don't need that 1st down that badly".

Imagine if X Wing players were paid like football players.