This is how doping in baseball and cycling started. Everyone looking the other way

I was just like, okay if we're going to be that picky....

I get your point. I can see why he forced you to do it in that case. But that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't using legal obstacles and myself, I'd of called the TO over before the match even started.

He should have by all rights have been DQ'ed from the whole tournament at that point, because he was clearly playing with a non-legal list.

The template was about 4-5 inches away. It was close to my side of the board. I'm good at visualizing movement so I laid the template down on the mat about 4-5 inches away. I honestly didn't have a problem with him calling me on it because I could see how someone could say it was being used to judge distance. I was just like, okay if we're going to be that picky.... It was a semifinal of a twenty five man tourney. My largest to date.

Ignoring your opponent's obviously illegal asteroids as a whole other problem this falls into a really iffy portion of the rules. Technically you did nothing illegal but clearly by your description it seems you were essentially trying to get a reference of the template to eye measure your decloak. This in many ways goes against the spirit of the rules in my opinion, much like using your hand to judge where movements will put you is legal but imo against the spirit of the rules. Nobody is clear on where the hard line against premeasuring falls and it really varies from person to person but I can understand the opponent's qualms here.

much like using your hand to judge where movements will put you is legal but imo against the spirit of the rules.

Alex and/or Frank actually said in an email that you couldn't use your hands to measure. Although that has never been added to the rules or FAQ.

But I agree that if you put the template a few inches away from the ship, facing a given way you should be locked into that direction.

I'm a lot more forgiving when it comes to making sure "missed opportunities" never happen and/or are corrected (which is how I see R2D2 when a green maneuver was performed) than we someone makes a major strategic error such as flying erratically, making poor action choices (which isn't the same as skipping the opportunity), or poor target selection (although here I want to make sure they have the potential options to shoot at.)

Does it matter at all that the ship in question was a PS 1 academy pilot? Changing the move had no effect on the game state.

Does it matter at all that the ship in question was a PS 1 academy pilot?

Rules wise? No not in the least, you have to perform the received maneuver unless there's some other effect that lets you change it. What PS it has or what impact it has no the game state doesn't matter.

Also the change had a rather large impact on the game state, since if he had performed the revealed maneuver he would of ended up on a obistical.

Never is this more challenging then in a tournament with a new player who make almost constant mistakes. You of course want to help a new player out along they way to help expand their knowledge of the game, even remind them to take actions from time to time, but in the same right, you want to win the game.

For me, I never flinch or second guess in situation like this. I am a pretty easy going guy, I would have allowed the player to take the move they intended and not thought twice about.

The worst feeling is when you spend the first half of the game correcting things your opponent is doing wrong (usually in their favor) and then they nail you on a missed opportunity that most players would have probably let slide (or at least brought to your attention before it became a missed opportunity).

Though to be fair if you're correcting or allowing things with the expectation of recompense then you have the wrong intent behind your actions and that's icky too. If you're going to be magnanimous and let them fix errors it should be because that feels right to you and not because there is a chance they'll let you fix something later.

Yeah, this wasn't a case of me being forgiving with an expectation of reciprocation. It was a match at a casual tournament where my opponent had obviously played a game with his friends that was very similar to X-Wing and even uses the same exact components as X-Wing, but hadn't ever actually played X-Wing by the same rules that everyone else uses.

It's just jarring to get nailed on a missed opportunity during a game like this. I wasn't paying attention and attacked from my second highest PS pilot first when I got to my higher PS pilot, I was informed that I couldn't attack with them because I skipped their turn. I don't know that I have ever played with anyone in the past that wouldn't have either stopped me from attacking with my lower PS pilot first (assuming they had noticed it at the time) or allowing the attack but commenting on the fact that it was out of order.

Does it matter at all that the ship in question was a PS 1 academy pilot?

Rules wise? No not in the least, you have to perform the received maneuver unless there's some other effect that lets you change it. What PS it has or what impact it has no the game state doesn't matter.Also the change had a rather large impact on the game state, since if he had performed the revealed maneuver he would of ended up on a obistical.

My point is that the tie was the first ship to move, so it's not like he was getting an advantage by being able to respond to something that happened after dials were set. Unless he had moved his other tie or the phantom had decloaked. . But say there was no phantom. What would be the difference between this and say, moving your ship, saying"ok, combat," picking up the dice and then saying "Oops, I forgot to focus?"

Heh that situation reminded me of one game on last year nationals.

Guy fielded 4xAP in square formation. When we started them game, when revealing dials he noticed that one of his ties was fielded backwards (i noticed it earlier but i havent decided yet what to do with it in case that he doesnt notice it) so it just had to fly of board. Even, it were nationals , and i was perfectly backed to demant this tie to fly off, i allowed him to turn it 180.

Game ended in THAT ONE FRAKKIN AP staying on board vs my 6 hull Boba Fett, shooting at range 1 and dealing direct hit/direct hit/hit in 1 turn. Game over, that one AP won him the game.

So OP: its not just you.....

My point is that the tie was the first ship to move, so it's not like he was getting an advantage by being able to respond to something that happened after dials were set.

That may matter for some and not for others. Given the situation I think it was clear the other guy wanted to a 3 left bank and did a 3 right bank by mistake. Likely because the ship was 'backwards' to him. I think many of us have at one point or another made a mistake like that.

So in that case it's not too hard to look at and figure out what the intended maneuver really was, and in that case the order doesn't matter.

What would be the difference between this and say, moving your ship, saying"ok, combat," picking up the dice and then saying "Oops, I forgot to focus?"

The rules are the difference, forgetting to focus is a missed opportunity but the rules are quite clear that you must perform the revealed maneuver. But even then, if you forget to focus the other person is quite able to refuse to let you put a focus on that ship after the fact.

Picking maneuvers is a big part of the game, it's one of the key skills in playing X-Wing and isn't something that should be taken lightly. I can see a few rare cases where I might let someone change their maneuver, when the ideal maneuver is apparent and in nearly every case is the opposite of what was picked. But you're really getting on a very slippery slope when you allow it.

I can see a few rare cases where I might let someone change their maneuver, when the ideal maneuver is apparent and in nearly every case is the opposite of what was picked. But you're really getting on a very slippery slope when you allow it.

I think you've made a decent case for why allowing it wouldn't put you on a slippery slope at all. If it is totally obvious to me that somebody has played the reverse manoeuvre to the one they intended to make, then allowing them to perform the manoeuvre they clearly did intend (if they ask) doesn't oblige me at all to make the same decision in a more ambiguous case.

The rules are the difference, forgetting to focus is a missed opportunity but the rules are quite clear that you must perform the revealed maneuver. But even then, if you forget to focus the other person is quite able to refuse to let you put a focus on that ship after the fact.Picking maneuvers is a big part of the game, it's one of the key skills in playing X-Wing and isn't something that should be taken lightly. I can see a few rare cases where I might let someone change their maneuver, when the ideal maneuver is apparent and in nearly every case is the opposite of what was picked. But you're really getting on a very slippery slope when you allow it.

Agreed. I just think that if one was going to allow a dial change, this would be the situation. I mean, dials are all on the table, he flips the dial for the first ship to activate, sees it's not the maneuver he wants and would like to change it. That's not so different from all dials on the table, pick one up and change it before activation. Again, I agree with everything you said, but if you ARE sometimes going to let a dial be changed, this is it. It's down to can he change it before (yes) or after (no, against the rules) the utterance of the word "set." It's"legally"different from a missed opportunity, but arbitrarily so.

In a casual game I'd let you change a manuever. In a tournament I had to be held back from flying someone's entire 5 TIE list that was facing backwards and all did 3 banks. He was a new player and I figured that I'd clean house anyways, the TO said, "Just let it go." So I didn't say anything and let him spin them around.

Yeah, sometimes reasonability must prevail.

Agreed. I just think that if one was going to allow a dial change, this would be the situation.

I think if I were going to let someone change a dial it would only be in a situation where it was clear they picked left instead of right, or visa versa.

So if a PS10 Wedge made a 3 left turn which took him off the board, but a 3 right turn put him behind my last ship at range 1... It's clear that the person picked the wrong direction because they didn't account for the ships facing when they set the dial.

I get your point, that since it was the first ship to move there's no advantage in changing the dial at that point. It's like if I have one ship left and it's the lowest PS is there really any reason for me to put my dial on the table at all?

But my point was really that the only way I'd let someone change a dial is it was clear the mistake was like I mentioned above.

Agreed. I just think that if one was going to allow a dial change, this would be the situation.

I think if I were going to let someone change a dial it would only be in a situation where it was clear they picked left instead of right, or visa versa.

So if a PS10 Wedge made a 3 left turn which took him off the board, but a 3 right turn put him behind my last ship at range 1... It's clear that the person picked the wrong direction because they didn't account for the ships facing when they set the dial.

I get your point, that since it was the first ship to move there's no advantage in changing the dial at that point. It's like if I have one ship left and it's the lowest PS is there really any reason for me to put my dial on the table at all?

But my point was really that the only way I'd let someone change a dial is it was clear the mistake was like I mentioned above.

But what if, in your example above, it determined the winner of the event? Especially a big event - let's say Worlds, and these were the last two ships on the table. Who amongst us would be inclined to extend this courtesy at the expense of the biggest prize of all? I'd like to think I would, but I just can't say for sure.

Yeah, sometimes reasonability must prevail.

I think so e players like to skirt the edge of reason. Approach it from the other side even.

But what if, in your example above, it determined the winner of the event? Especially a big event - let's say Worlds, and these were the last two ships on the table. Who amongst us would be inclined to extend this courtesy at the expense of the biggest prize of all? I'd like to think I would, but I just can't say for sure.

Context. At Worlds you can expect a different level of competitors than at the second tournament in the country.

VanorDM touched on this, but I feel it bears repeating.

In a recent store championship, one of my opponents assigned a red maneuver to an already stressed Omega Leader. Now, if I wanted to, I could have assigned a 5 Straight to that ship, flown it off the board and been within my rights to do so. I didn't do that however, its not sporting in my opinion. I assigned him a hard 3 maneuver which took OL out of the fight for three turns. Hard enough to hurt but not bad that it was game changing. I won the game, and my opponent at the end of the game thanked me for not doing the 'jerk-move'.

I feel very strongly that we need to push back against the idea that playing by the rules is a "jerk move." The RAW say that the consequence of dialing in a red while stressed is that your opponent gets to pick any legal move. If FFG wanted a rider that says "except if it causes the ship to flee the battlefield" they could add it. They haven't.

Red maneuver while stressed? You better believe I'm going to take advantage of that. That's probably not very "fly casual" of me, but any other response would allow an opponent to act with knowledge they didn't have when initially setting the dial (unless they're moving absolutely first, I suppose). It's only happened once, and I used the move to position the enemy out of the fight for a couple rounds, but I wouldn't be opposed to flying an opponent into an obstacle or clear off the board (though I suspect that goes against the fly casual motto).

Playing by the rules doesn't violate fly casual. Being a jerk or gloating about using a stressed red dial to cause a ship to flee would. Asking for missed opportunities but not granting them would. Saying things to "get in their head" probably would.

But no, you are 100% within your rights to ask for a clean, RAW game, especially in a tournament, without being shamed for violating fly casual.

But what if, in your example above, it determined the winner of the event? Especially a big event - let's say Worlds, and these were the last two ships on the table. Who amongst us would be inclined to extend this courtesy at the expense of the biggest prize of all? I'd like to think I would, but I just can't say for sure.

Context. At Worlds you can expect a different level of competitors than at the second tournament in the country.

While I agree with you here, would not the intent and outcome be the same? It would be just as obvious that an accidental misdialing occurred and the readily apparent intention would be a right turn to victory vs. a left turn off the board in the 'big game'. If an extension of leniency is given in a 'small potatoes' game should it not also be given in a 'big potatoes' game?

And I totally understand the obligation, or more accurately lack thereof, of one player to make allowances to another and how/where that falls within the rules. So I do not need a citation of the rules, thanks anyway .

If you're at your kitchen table play any way you want.at a tournament when two opponents agree to cheat it seems no different than collusion. DQ them both and move on.

VanorDM touched on this, but I feel it bears repeating.

In a recent store championship, one of my opponents assigned a red maneuver to an already stressed Omega Leader. Now, if I wanted to, I could have assigned a 5 Straight to that ship, flown it off the board and been within my rights to do so. I didn't do that however, its not sporting in my opinion. I assigned him a hard 3 maneuver which took OL out of the fight for three turns. Hard enough to hurt but not bad that it was game changing. I won the game, and my opponent at the end of the game thanked me for not doing the 'jerk-move'.

I feel very strongly that we need to push back against the idea that playing by the rules is a "jerk move." The RAW say that the consequence of dialing in a red while stressed is that your opponent gets to pick any legal move. If FFG wanted a rider that says "except if it causes the ship to flee the battlefield" they could add it. They haven't.

Red maneuver while stressed? You better believe I'm going to take advantage of that. That's probably not very "fly casual" of me, but any other response would allow an opponent to act with knowledge they didn't have when initially setting the dial (unless they're moving absolutely first, I suppose). It's only happened once, and I used the move to position the enemy out of the fight for a couple rounds, but I wouldn't be opposed to flying an opponent into an obstacle or clear off the board (though I suspect that goes against the fly casual motto).

Playing by the rules doesn't violate fly casual. Being a jerk or gloating about using a stressed red dial to cause a ship to flee would. Asking for missed opportunities but not granting them would. Saying things to "get in their head" probably would.

But no, you are 100% within your rights to ask for a clean, RAW game, especially in a tournament, without being shamed for violating fly casual.

Definitely agree on the red maneuver while stressed thing. I had a tournament where two games in a row I tried to k-turn my already stressed soontir. First game, he got flown off the board. I didn't get mad at my opponent for it, he did exactly what I would have done. I DID get mad at my own idiocy, but I also went on to win the game anyway. Second game, he couldn't get me off the board but he did park me on an obstacle at range 1 in front of his kath. Fortunately he blanke dout his attack dice on that one...

At our gaming club, casual/friendly games, correcting obvious mistakes is allowed if agreed by both players, in Tournaments not allowed at all.

Especially a big event - let's say Worlds, and these were the last two ships on the table.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. When I'd do that I was thinking of the situation in the OP which involved a new player who didn't know the game real well. You get to Worlds and that seems unlikely to be the case. I'm more lenient to new players then I am vets.

First game, he got flown off the board. I didn't get mad at my opponent for it, he did exactly what I would have done.

The way I figure it... if you're close enough to the edge that getting flown off is a risk, then you need to pay extra attention to what you're doing. So that means if I can fly you off the edge, in my mind, you screwed up twice.

I appreciate you guys bringing that back up. It's something I really find distasteful, the idea some have in this community that somehow playing by the rules is morally or ethically wrong.

I know Hothie kinda washed his hands of the whole Fly Casual thing because too many people started to change it from what he intended into an excuse to fly carelessly. Forget to take an action? Fly Casual. Fly your ship off the board? Fly Casual. The rules are too hard to follow? Fly Casual.

I mean we honestly had people here arguing that if they fly a ship off the edge themselves... Not that they did a red and I did it, but the maneuver they both intended to pick and did reveal puts their ship off the board, that they should be able to keep it because... Fly Casual. They also were quite clear that anyone who wouldn't let them keep it was a WAAC jerk.