If a TO forces the correction of any mistake he happens to see, he has obliged himself to watch every game for the full duration, if he wants to rule in a consistent manner.

Not really, he just needs to consistently step in when he or she happens to see something.

So it becomes entirely dependent on the capriciousness of where the TO happens to be. Better let the players solve it, and if they can't, the TO is called over.

So it becomes entirely dependent on the capriciousness of where the TO happens to be.

There's nothing capricious about where the TO happens to be. Random yes, but that's not the same thing at all.

Better let the players solve it, and if they can't, the TO is called over.

That all depends on what it is. The rules say this... "Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden." So there is at least one case where the Judge not only should, but per the rules must interject themselves without being called over.

So I don't completely disagree, using the ever present Rebel Captive example, if there's an issue with it the best thing may be for the TO to not get involved if not asked. But there is really no way anyone can claim that TO should never get involved without being asked. As I said before, a TO could be completely justified in considering the case the OP mentioned to be a form of collusion. Not saying they have to see it that way, but if they do then they not only should be realy are required to get involved.

Here's some other examples of times I think a TO could/should get involved without being asked.

If they see someone stalling. The other guy may not think much of it, or be afraid to say anything.

If they see a player being bullied. One player may be doing something wrong and may make a big stink about the TO being called over.

If both players are clearly unclear how the rules should work. The TO may not need to get involved but telling them what the rules say could be the best thing.

If one player is taking an excessively long time to decide on something. At Regionals a friend of mine rolled too many dice, and mentioned it after the other guy rolled defense dice. It took them some time to decide what to do. So in this case a friendly reminder that there was a time limit may be ok.

If the TO sees one player trying to take advantage of a newbie. I could easily see someone playing someone new trying to take advantage of it. "No only the Imperials get the extra defense die at range 3, it's in the FAQ"

I'm sure there's plenty of others, so it's clearly not as simple as they should or shouldn't get involved when not asked, but rather it's going to depend greatly on the given situation.

And honestly the TO does have the final say in pretty much anything. So even if they maybe shouldn't get involved, that doesn't mean they don't have the authority to do so.

Well, this thread went they way they always do, a fight between the two extremes.

We got the crowd that never allows takebacks, feels bad about themselves when other people do and therefore convince themselves it's wrong for anyone to allow anyone takebacks. We've also got the crowd that feels they should be given takebacks and that anyone who doesn't allow them takebacks is "WAAC scum".

Both sides are wrong.

If you allow your opponent to correct an obvious (to you) mistake, that's fine. If you don't, that's also fine.

The only bad sportsmanship here is from the people who treat everyone who wouldn't rule as they do as a lesser player.

So it becomes entirely dependent on the capriciousness of where the TO happens to be.

There's nothing capricious about where the TO happens to be. Random yes, but that's not the same thing at all.

The majority here seems to agree that either option is acceptable for the player who lets it slide. I tend to agree. But if a TO is obliged to intervene, this becomes a gamble. Suddenly you might be guilty of 'collusion'.

Interestingly, you're making the point that the letter of the rules should be followed; apparently the TO must intervene. I thought that a TO should also look at the 'intent'. The intent is clearly not to manipulate the score, the intent is to have a 100 vs. 100 point game. But now that is not a factor, because...wel, just because I guess.

What would Yoda do?

(Probably do a back flip and cut the other guy's head off)

Well, this thread went they way they always do, a fight between the two extremes.

We got the crowd that never allows takebacks, feels bad about themselves when other people do and therefore convince themselves it's wrong for anyone to allow anyone takebacks. We've also got the crowd that feels they should be given takebacks and that anyone who doesn't allow them takebacks is "WAAC scum".

Both sides are wrong.

If you allow your opponent to correct an obvious (to you) mistake, that's fine. If you don't, that's also fine.

The only bad sportsmanship here is from the people who treat everyone who wouldn't rule as they do as a lesser player.

apparently the TO must intervene. I thought that a TO should also look at the 'intent'.

The rules don't say the TO must intervene, just that he should if there is something going on. It's up the TO quite naturally to decide if that is the case or not. Of course I've said that a number of times, in a number of ways... Either I'm not being clear or you're not reading my posts.

There also seems to be some opinion here that the TO can not get involved without being asked... Which is patently absurd, the Judge can do whatever he or she wants the only option the players really have is to not attend events where that person is the judge.

My stance on it once again... Is that the Judge/TO should get involved if he or she feels that doing so is required, and does not have to wait to be asked. Whether the judge should or not is going to based solely on the situation at hand and the discretion of that person.

Well, this thread went they way they always do, a fight between the two extremes.

We got the crowd that never allows takebacks, feels bad about themselves when other people do and therefore convince themselves it's wrong for anyone to allow anyone takebacks. We've also got the crowd that feels they should be given takebacks and that anyone who doesn't allow them takebacks is "WAAC scum".

Both sides are wrong.

If you allow your opponent to correct an obvious (to you) mistake, that's fine. If you don't, that's also fine.

The only bad sportsmanship here is from the people who treat everyone who wouldn't rule as they do as a lesser player.

Actually this post is wrong because Crowd A's viewpoint doesn't have anything to do with self-loathing.

*yawns widely* this still going on?

I wish I'd never spoken up. Teach me to have an opinion on the internet...

Actually this post is wrong because Crowd A's viewpoint doesn't have anything to do with self-loathing.

Self loathing? I wouldn't go that far. However, I'd wager in the vast majority of cases players who hold the view that it's wrong for anyone to allow corrections, takebacks or any form of leniency do so because they don't allow such themselves: if allowing takebacks is wrong then not allowing them is right. It's a natural reaction to feeling socially pressured to allow leniency when you don't. I've seen it described as being "guilt tripped" or "shamed" by players on this forum before. If you feel you're being judged negatively by someone else you'll probably judge them negatively back.

In the same vein, the other extreme is likely to drop the WAAC bomb when they're the ones who feel their position is being judged. You could also draw parallels with Extreme B getting angry at not being allowed a takeback: being angry at your opponent for not allowing a takeback means not being angry at yourself: it's mentally shifting the blame.

Oh the irony for "Camp 2", literally one post before you-

" There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you.

Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that."

My point is simply consider the situation.

Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game. (Example- Rebel captive thread- you forgot rebel captive (Ignoring mal intent) and no stress is on the mat and the next ship fired it is a missed opportunity and stress per the rules cannot be retroactively placed if the next ship fired. However, most agree if it is forgotten, you will do what is best to correct it without affecting the game state.) I am sure some might have problems reconciling "following the rules" and doing "what is right" in a black and white world.

I fail to see the Irony. My post was simply that Camp 2 acknowledges the rules and that you're not a bad sport or horrible person if you enforce the rules.

VanorDM's post was trying to explain that there is no grey area to breaking the rules. The rule says something and if you go against that, you are breaking the rules. He never said that you must always follow the rules, there is no leeway. Just know that by letting a person change their dial after the fact, YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES.

Do you understand?

"Camp 2 - It was a mistake, but it's the players mistake and the rules say he flies off the board. However if Player B wants to be super nice and let him do the intended move, that's up up to Player B."

Vanor says this,

"If however you're in a tournament then what you do affects everyone else there. Also I don't think it's a huge stretch to say allowing someone to keep a ship that should be destroyed is a form of collusion to change the score, which is explicitly against the rules. "

"You are wrong, because it is unfair for someone to pick and chose when to follow the rules and when not to. That's why cheating is considered a bad thing."

Fascinating way to characterize your camp.... So what is Camp 2 saying in this tournament setting? Sure sounds like there is only 1 right answer from "CAMP 2" , if your breaking the rules, then Collusion! Where exactly is Vanor allowing the leeway in the tournament setting?

And apparently, breaking the rules (Rebel Captive) to correct the prior error is ok because it is an exception. Please do tell is there any more exceptions? I mean the rules are clear on a missed opportunity. Not sure how the example is flawed. If both players forget in the proper timing window- no stress. Putting stress out of the right timing window is quite clearly breaking the rules.

What exactly does 'Fly casual" mean to you? Shake hands after the game? Or is it out the window in a all very very important tourney?

I suspect for Vanor, Fly Casual means don't be an *******.

Amazingly, you can follow the rules to the letter and not be an *******.

Which is why the judgemental bull only enforces my belief in the miltant casual. It is not wrong for the opponent to not allow a player to fix such an "obvious" mistake. It is also not wrong for him to allow it as well. No matter the outcome, if it was handled in a courteous and friendly fashion, then things were flown casually.

And such a pity Forcekin has dropped out of the thread. I really, really want to know where personal insults fit on the fly casual line.

Here's some other examples of times I think a TO could/should get involved without being asked.

If they see someone stalling. The other guy may not think much of it, or be afraid to say anything.

If they see a player being bullied. One player may be doing something wrong and may make a big stink about the TO being called over.

If both players are clearly unclear how the rules should work. The TO may not need to get involved but telling them what the rules say could be the best thing.

If one player is taking an excessively long time to decide on something. At Regionals a friend of mine rolled too many dice, and mentioned it after the other guy rolled defense dice. It took them some time to decide what to do. So in this case a friendly reminder that there was a time limit may be ok.

If the TO sees one player trying to take advantage of a newbie. I could easily see someone playing someone new trying to take advantage of it. "No only the Imperials get the extra defense die at range 3, it's in the FAQ"

I'm sure there's plenty of others, so it's clearly not as simple as they should or shouldn't get involved when not asked, but rather it's going to depend greatly on the given situation.

And honestly the TO does have the final say in pretty much anything. So even if they maybe shouldn't get involved, that doesn't mean they don't have the authority to do so.

Of course, but passive means not watching a game and correcting every possible error.

Actually this post is wrong because Crowd A's viewpoint doesn't have anything to do with self-loathing.

Self loathing? I wouldn't go that far. However, I'd wager in the vast majority of cases players who hold the view that it's wrong for anyone to allow corrections, takebacks or any form of leniency do so because they don't allow such themselves: if allowing takebacks is wrong then not allowing them is right. It's a natural reaction to feeling socially pressured to allow leniency when you don't. I've seen it described as being "guilt tripped" or "shamed" by players on this forum before. If you feel you're being judged negatively by someone else you'll probably judge them negatively back.

In the same vein, the other extreme is likely to drop the WAAC bomb when they're the ones who feel their position is being judged. You could also draw parallels with Extreme B getting angry at not being allowed a takeback: being angry at your opponent for not allowing a takeback means not being angry at yourself: it's mentally shifting the blame.

Nah think of it this way,

At turn 0, squad facing the wrong way, lets say 95% of players will allow a correction.

At turn 1, ship off the board, lets say 75% of players will allow a correction.

At turn 2, ship off the board, lets say 25% of players will allow a correction.

At turn 8, ship off the board, lets say 5% of players will allow a correction.

Now at turn 0 is the 95% wrong for allowing this to happen? Sure as Vanor likes to points you are 'breaking the rule" but that doesnt solve anything, what the question is what is the 'right' thing to do? Turn 0 seems ok for change but what about turn 3? Is there truly a right answer?

My point is I dont have an right 'answer' but just consider the situation. What camp is that?

Nah think of it this way,

At turn 0, squad facing the wrong way, lets say 95% of players will allow a correction.

At turn 1, ship off the board, lets say 75% of players will allow a correction.

At turn 2, ship off the board, lets say 25% of players will allow a correction.

At turn 8, ship off the board, lets say 5% of players will allow a correction.

Now at turn 0 is the 95% wrong for allowing this to happen? Sure as Vanor likes to points you are 'breaking the rule" but that doesnt solve anything, what the question is what is the 'right' thing to do? Turn 0 seems ok for change but what about turn 3? Is there truly a right answer?

My point is I dont have an right 'answer' but just consider the situation. What camp is that?

There is no "right" answer. Which is sort of the point that gets lost whenever these threads get brought up.

It's recently been pounded into my head that knowingly allowing your opponent to break the rules is cheating.

You're cheating by knowingly allowing your opponent to change their dial should they put a maneuver in that flies them off the board. They're cheating also.

Casual games are different of course, this goes without saying.

Place your ships not facing backwards (you can make a hard 1 turn with a small base facing backwards and as far from the edge as possible though), and double check your dial especially near the table edge. If you fly off the table you deserve it.

You face your ship backwards it's going off the table turn 1. *raises fists, shakes them while chanting* "Win at all costs! Win at all costs! Win at all costs!"

You really need to look up what cheating actually means, because you still have no clue.

If a TO forces the correction of any mistake he happens to see, he has obliged himself to watch every game for the full duration, if he wants to rule in a consistent manner.

Not really, he just needs to consistently step in when he or she happens to see something.

So it becomes entirely dependent on the capriciousness of where the TO happens to be. Better let the players solve it, and if they can't, the TO is called over.

This is an entirely untenable standard for TOs to operate under.

A TO can not be obligated to watch a player misplay a rule and only step in on the opponents request. That is cultivating an environment where cheating is encouraged.

That the TO won't be available to correct every issue, does not mean a TO shouldn't correct any issue.

This is the type of farsical standard that WizKids uses in Heroclix events, which consistently leads to controversy as TOs watch players repeatedly misplay rules (possibly cheat) and do nothing about it.

However, I'd wager in the vast majority of cases players who hold the view that it's wrong for anyone to allow corrections, takebacks or any form of leniency do so because they don't allow such themselves:

I can't speak for the vast majority, but myself I've allowed people to fix mistakes, even if I won't accept them myself. That is also true of most people I play with. We tend to allow quarter even if we won't accept it ourself. That means most times everyone refuses the offer, but it's being made.

You seem to completely misunderstand the mindset of a competitive player and I'm not sure it's worth explaining. But I'll try.

To me, winning because the other guy let us correct a mistake taints the victory. But winning when I allow the other guy to do so doesn't, so there's no reason I can't make the offer.

I suspect for Vanor, Fly Casual means don't be an *******.

Given the way he formats his posts, I stopped reading them. But yeah that sums up my opinion on how to fly casual. The problem is as you well know and why I think the term you coined, 'militant casual' is so correct, the people who use Fly Casual as way to hide their WAAC tendencies.

My point is I dont have an right 'answer' but just consider the situation. What camp is that?

As Sithborg pointed out there is no one single right answer. There's what the rules say, but depending on the situation you can break the rules and still have a fair game. There is generally nothing unfair about following the rules, provided they're followed consistently. It's when they're not applied consistently that you run into issues.

I know this is my first post and that it might draw some heated debate, but I want to get some second opinions on this situation.

I played as NZ nationals last weekend and it was the fourth game, my opponent and I were both 2-1 and playing on Table 4. I was running Dash/Corran and he had Soontir/Vader/Delta. We both deployed on our left flanks. His Soontir was basically right next to his left hand board edge. His Soontir flew straight the first turn and then banked on the second turn. But my opponent had set his dial to bank the wrong direction, a move that would have clearly flown him off the board. My opponent had not noticed this and just banked Soontir inwards. I pointed out to him that his dial was wrong and just told him to double check in the future. It did not occur to me at that time that I possibly should have asked him to fly his Soontir off the board as his dial indicated.

I went on to lose the game and then not make the top cut on MOV.

Should I have made my opponent fly his Soontir off the board? His dial setting was clearly a mistake and I always like to fly casual and all that, but if not on the top tables at nationals when should this type of mistake be penalized?

It doesn't matter. Be the player you want to be. If you want to win on a mistake, take the win. If you want to win a game of X-Wing, let it slide. Either way, there should be no argument.

Should I have made my opponent fly his Soontir off the board? His dial setting was clearly a mistake and I always like to fly casual and all that, but if not on the top tables at nationals when should this type of mistake be penalized?

It doesn't matter. Be the player you want to be. If you want to win on a mistake, take the win. If you want to win a game of X-Wing, let it slide. Either way, there should be no argument.

At Nationals, the other player should have known better. I have accidentally flown one ship (Tie Defender) off the board doing exactly that same thing. I didn't ask to "flip the dial", it was my mistake, yes an honest one, now I have to live with it. I have never accidentally flown another ship off the board. (Yes, I have purposefully done it once, but that's a different story.)

Personally, I would not have wanted to "win" a game where you let me keep my ship. That's why I hold myself to the rules as much as possible. It's not about sportsmanship or being "fair". Competitive play is about being the best you can and if you make a stupid error, you pay for it.

Good sportsmanship is following the rules and not gloating when someone gets penalized for doing something wrong. If you do a dance, laugh in their face and calling them names for their mistake, then that's being a poor sport.

Fair play is following the rules because it's FAIR to both sides. You make exceptions to the rules and it's no longer fair. One side benefits, the other side doesn't.

People need to stop confusing being a good sport and fair play with bending the rules and saying "I fly casual." At a casual, local hobby store game night, If I try to do a K-turn and misjudge so I bump into you instead of behind you, will you let me change my dials? What if I land on an asteroid? What if the asteroid kills me? Then will it be okay? (For me, the correct answers to all of those is: NO.)

You can be a good guy, you can be good sport, you can be fair, and you can still be the NICE GUY even if you hold someone accountable for WHAT THEY DID. Next time, they will have more attention to detail and not make the same mistake again. If they rage quit or give up right there, that's on them. I finished my match, didn't win, but I still learned as I was playing.

Should I have made my opponent fly his Soontir off the board? His dial setting was clearly a mistake and I always like to fly casual and all that, but if not on the top tables at nationals when should this type of mistake be penalized?

It doesn't matter. Be the player you want to be. If you want to win on a mistake, take the win. If you want to win a game of X-Wing, let it slide. Either way, there should be no argument.

At Nationals, the other player should have known better. I have accidentally flown one ship (Tie Defender) off the board doing exactly that same thing. I didn't ask to "flip the dial", it was my mistake, yes an honest one, now I have to live with it. I have never accidentally flown another ship off the board. (Yes, I have purposefully done it once, but that's a different story.)

Personally, I would not have wanted to "win" a game where you let me keep my ship. That's why I hold myself to the rules as much as possible. It's not about sportsmanship or being "fair". Competitive play is about being the best you can and if you make a stupid error, you pay for it.

Good sportsmanship is following the rules and not gloating when someone gets penalized for doing something wrong. If you do a dance, laugh in their face and calling them names for their mistake, then that's being a poor sport.

Fair play is following the rules because it's FAIR to both sides. You make exceptions to the rules and it's no longer fair. One side benefits, the other side doesn't.

People need to stop confusing being a good sport and fair play with bending the rules and saying "I fly casual." At a casual, local hobby store game night, If I try to do a K-turn and misjudge so I bump into you instead of behind you, will you let me change my dials? What if I land on an asteroid? What if the asteroid kills me? Then will it be okay? (For me, the correct answers to all of those is: NO.)

You can be a good guy, you can be good sport, you can be fair, and you can still be the NICE GUY even if you hold someone accountable for WHAT THEY DID. Next time, they will have more attention to detail and not make the same mistake again. If they rage quit or give up right there, that's on them. I finished my match, didn't win, but I still learned as I was playing.

Well said sir. Well said. :-)

I know this is my first post and that it might draw some heated debate, but I want to get some second opinions on this situation.

I played as NZ nationals last weekend and it was the fourth game, my opponent and I were both 2-1 and playing on Table 4. I was running Dash/Corran and he had Soontir/Vader/Delta. We both deployed on our left flanks. His Soontir was basically right next to his left hand board edge. His Soontir flew straight the first turn and then banked on the second turn. But my opponent had set his dial to bank the wrong direction, a move that would have clearly flown him off the board. My opponent had not noticed this and just banked Soontir inwards. I pointed out to him that his dial was wrong and just told him to double check in the future. It did not occur to me at that time that I possibly should have asked him to fly his Soontir off the board as his dial indicated.

I went on to lose the game and then not make the top cut on MOV.

Should I have made my opponent fly his Soontir off the board? His dial setting was clearly a mistake and I always like to fly casual and all that, but if not on the top tables at nationals when should this type of mistake be penalized?

If you and your opponent want to get better at this game, never let them take back mistakes.

This thread has been very much about whether you are player A or B. A being somebody who allows the take back and B being the the no take backs guy. However I think there are four types of person here

A-lets player take back move but wouldn't expect it themselves.

B- doesn't allow take back and wouldn't expect it themselves, even if offered.

C-lets player take back the move and would expect it themselves.

D- doesn't allow take back but wouldn't say no to a take back if their opponent offered it to them

A and B are both sportsmanlike because they are both holding themselves to the same standards they hold their opponents to. They might be doing it for reasons that are at odds with each other, but you know where you stand with them. Most importantly, whether the game is A vs A, Bvs B or A vs B, there is no need for a third party and nobody is put into an awkward postiton.

C makes things awkward as it might cause sour feelings/ require a judge/ forcing your morals onto other people and, frankly, I hope none of you are a D. That's a pretty slimey thing to do.

Myself? I am an A because I respect my opponent's right to have an enjoyable competitive game that is not won on a technicality but I also respect my opponent's right to follow the rules that we have all agreed to follow by turning up to the event. And my list will likely be filthy. I need all the goodwill I can get.