That whole TO thing made me shake my head over and over. What a poor example of being a TO. That should be in a video called "How to NOT run X-Wing events". I've had opponents with identical ships, same PS, same maneuvers reveal their dials all at once and move. I didn't see any issue with it. Sounds like the guy was trying to manipulate the situation to his advantage and the TO was sticking up for one of his locals.

The first thing that is coming up is this didn't happen until later in the game. Clearly your opponent had already consented the first round or two of this happening. He agreed to let you do this by not correcting you the first time you did it. By not communicating your opponent consented to your play style. Heck even Paul Heaver at worlds last year moved his pilot skill 2 ships before putting out focus tokens.

This objection should have only happened on turn 1 or the first time this happens and not several rounds into it.

The TO also handled it poorly from the sound of it and should have allowed the action to occur as they had previous rounds (using the previous rounds as precedent that it was ok with the opponent then) and ruled that all further moves should be done ship by ship.

My thoughts on the situation.

I completely agree here that this entire situation was outrageous. If MJ was mislead to believe that he would be able to move all his ships at once without penalty, his opponent should have been held accountable for poor sportsmanship.

However...

No communication does not equal consent. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Ultimately, there should be an open line of communication between players throughout the entirety of the game. This should be used as a learning opportunity for all of us - there is a burden of communication on both players. If you plan on moving all like-PS ships at once, ask your opponent first if he minds. Also ask if you can continue to do it all game. If your opponent has a problem with it later, he has the right to retract consent, but should do so BEFORE you start flipping dials, otherwise he is trying to entrap you, and the TO should be called over.

In terms of the rulings made by the TO...

I am very interested in the comment about Doug Kenney's "use of Legos to distract his opponents". Can you further discuss what he was doing with Legos? Did he have a Lego Dice Tower or attach Lego pilots to the pegs? Did he maybe notice my Lego use at World's 2015?

I am very interested in the comment about Doug Kenney's "use of Legos to distract his opponents". Can you further discuss what he was doing with Legos? Did he have a Lego Dice Tower or attach Lego pilots to the pegs? Did he maybe notice my Lego use at World's 2015?

if im not mistaken he had a lego tray that held his: List, Damage deck, Dice, Templates, all other neccesary goodies to play xwing

Doug Kinney runs Ankeny Construction Toys (or Facebook). You might know him as the 2012 X-Wing World Champion, or on the forums as Hothie. If you've ever heard of Fly Casual? He's that guy too...

Anywho... who recently made a Lego X-Wing tray that looks like this:

It might look a bit cumbersome, but he has a solution for that too (bad photo, but good idea):

@Vaynmaneen

Great List!

You should add Ion-Projektor and removing ion-token.

That interaction depending on initiative always hurts my brain!

The first thing that is coming up is this didn't happen until later in the game. Clearly your opponent had already consented the first round or two of this happening. He agreed to let you do this by not correcting you the first time you did it. By not communicating your opponent consented to your play style. Heck even Paul Heaver at worlds last year moved his pilot skill 2 ships before putting out focus tokens.

This objection should have only happened on turn 1 or the first time this happens and not several rounds into it.

The TO also handled it poorly from the sound of it and should have allowed the action to occur as they had previous rounds (using the previous rounds as precedent that it was ok with the opponent then) and ruled that all further moves should be done ship by ship.

My thoughts on the situation.

I completely agree here that this entire situation was outrageous. If MJ was mislead to believe that he would be able to move all his ships at once without penalty, his opponent should have been held accountable for poor sportsmanship.

However...

No communication does not equal consent. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Ultimately, there should be an open line of communication between players throughout the entirety of the game. This should be used as a learning opportunity for all of us - there is a burden of communication on both players. If you plan on moving all like-PS ships at once, ask your opponent first if he minds. Also ask if you can continue to do it all game. If your opponent has a problem with it later, he has the right to retract consent, but should do so BEFORE you start flipping dials, otherwise he is trying to entrap you, and the TO should be called over.

In terms of the rulings made by the TO...

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No by revealing dials you are not changing the course of the game. The only examples that do not work (blocking does not as that is moving the model and not revealing) would be dropping bombs and using options to manipulate the dial. The barrel roll action you are implying was not in question, but is something that people do during the movement of the ships as well as boost. The type of situation that is being discussed is usually adding focus tokens, evades, or target locks.

In the situation that you described above, how many people would allow this to happen during the first round of play? This is similar to the guy who posted/bragged about the fact he denied shots in a game because someone had measured from different Y's for a shot when they all have the same pilot skill.

This is exactly how consent works. Consent is the voluntary action of giving approval, there are many forms of consent such as non verbal which is used in this case when an action/play style occurs you have the option to speak against the action. If you do not speak against the action/play style you are giving non verbal consent (voluntarily agreeing to allow this kind of action/play style).

In a perfect world we would all sit down for five minutes before the game and discuss things such as our styles of movement. In reality in tournaments you are often rushing to get things set up, going over your opponent's list, and planning strategy. You are also trying to ensure you have the maximum amount of time before the round ends.

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No by revealing dials you are not changing the course of the game. The only examples that do not work (blocking does not as that is moving the model and not revealing) would be dropping bombs and using options to manipulate the dial. The barrel roll action you are implying was not in question, but is something that people do during the movement of the ships as well as boost. The type of situation that is being discussed is usually adding focus tokens, evades, or target locks.

In the situation that you described above, how many people would allow this to happen during the first round of play? This is similar to the guy who posted/bragged about the fact he denied shots in a game because someone had measured from different Y's for a shot when they all have the same pilot skill.

This is exactly how consent works. Consent is the voluntary action of giving approval, there are many forms of consent such as non verbal which is used in this case when an action/play style occurs you have the option to speak against the action. If you do not speak against the action/play style you are giving non verbal consent (voluntarily agreeing to allow this kind of action/play style).

In a perfect world we would all sit down for five minutes before the game and discuss things such as our styles of movement. In reality in tournaments you are often rushing to get things set up, going over your opponent's list, and planning strategy. You are also trying to ensure you have the maximum amount of time before the round ends.

Alright, so how would you handle the situation I described above? Turn 1 they all moved and focused, and let's assume you said that was ok (or said nothing - implying consent, as you would say). Turn 2, they do what I described above - moved as a block, then went to barrell roll all of them. How would you handle that?

The first thing that is coming up is this didn't happen until later in the game. Clearly your opponent had already consented the first round or two of this happening. He agreed to let you do this by not correcting you the first time you did it. By not communicating your opponent consented to your play style. Heck even Paul Heaver at worlds last year moved his pilot skill 2 ships before putting out focus tokens.

This objection should have only happened on turn 1 or the first time this happens and not several rounds into it.

The TO also handled it poorly from the sound of it and should have allowed the action to occur as they had previous rounds (using the previous rounds as precedent that it was ok with the opponent then) and ruled that all further moves should be done ship by ship.

My thoughts on the situation.

I completely agree here that this entire situation was outrageous. If MJ was mislead to believe that he would be able to move all his ships at once without penalty, his opponent should have been held accountable for poor sportsmanship.

However...

No communication does not equal consent. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Ultimately, there should be an open line of communication between players throughout the entirety of the game. This should be used as a learning opportunity for all of us - there is a burden of communication on both players. If you plan on moving all like-PS ships at once, ask your opponent first if he minds. Also ask if you can continue to do it all game. If your opponent has a problem with it later, he has the right to retract consent, but should do so BEFORE you start flipping dials, otherwise he is trying to entrap you, and the TO should be called over.

In terms of the rulings made by the TO...

I have always run on the practice of asking for verbal confirmation that me deviating from the rules is OK before breaking them.

It is an assumption that the other player even noticed what was going on until it was relevant. (Given Bobs account it does seem to be a practice that this player uses to try to gain an advantage) As a piece of general advice if you want to deviate from the rules, never assume that it is OK.

When I used to fly the 8 TIE Swarm I would have a stock question in Round 1 before I flipped a dial.

"So that I don't slow down play do you have any problem with me either only setting one Dial or Performing all of the moves at the same time until these ships break formation?"

If they (quite rightly) wanted me to play by the rules than I would use the rules in the rule book.

If Bob had followed the rules on page 4 of the Rules Reference Guide;

ACTIVATION PHASE

During the Activation phase, each ship is activated one at a time, starting with the ship with the lowest pilot skill and continuing in ascending order. Each ship resolves the following steps in order:

1. Reveal Dial: Reveal the ship’s dial and take the maneuver template that matches the chosen maneuver.

2. Execute Maneuver: Resolve the following substeps in order:

a. Move Ship: Slide the maneuver template between the front guides of the ship’s base so that it is flush against the base. Then pick up the ship and place it at the opposite end of the template, sliding the rear guides of the base into the opposite end of the template.

b. Check Pilot Stress: If the maneuver is red, assign one stress token to the ship; if the maneuver is green, remove one stress token from the ship.

c. Clean Up: Return the maneuver template to the pile of maneuver templates. Place the revealed dial outside the play area next to the ship’s Ship card.

3. Perform Action: The ship may perform one action.

• If a player has multiple ships with the same pilot skill value, he can activate them in any order.

The TO would not have had to get involved in the first place.

This is why I have often argued with Sean on the show about the Vast Majority of problems I ever encounter as a TO are caused by Players. If Bob had not broken the fundamental game rules there would not have been an issue to aruge with the TO about.

To compound maters even further Bob argued himself in to not being able to move his ships, the TO did not just walk over and say oh, not only do you lose your actions, you lose your move too.

From how Bob described it, it sounded like the TO said that he lost his actions and Bob retorted with (paraphrasing as non of us were there)

"That is stupid a stupid ruling If I can't take actions, I cant even move the ships as they only get to actions after completing the moves."

So the TO said "OK, you can't move either."

Now I was not there and only have Bobs account to go off, but he said on the show that it was a heated exchange with himself and the TO, can you blame a TO for not wanting the situation to continue and wanting a ruling made so that he can get back to the running of the event?

I can see a case for him being fed up that the player who broke the rules is trying to argue their way out of it and just maing a ruling.

Do I agree with the ruling?

No.

Would I have made the ruling?

No.

Would I have argued with a TO as a player in their event?

No.

I think it is unfair to personally attack a TO when we only have one side of the story.

Ultimately, the TO has to be respected for their rulings, whether good or bad. They are not there to take our abuse and make the best rulings they can in the moment.

I make a habit of jumping in to any of the local Facebook chatter about rules questions to say how I will rule it until an FAQ comes out.

The thread is free to continue but I will not change my ruling until it is contradicted by FFG, I think that being upfront with my players is the best way for them to know what to expect going in to an event that I am TO'ing.

Lets all try to put this in to perspective before we go all hate the TO mode. They deserve our respect!

Kris

Manaroo can get an evade token right now: Cool Hand. Only once though.

@Vaynmaneen

Great List!

You should add Ion-Projektor and removing ion-token.

That interaction depending on initiative always hurts my brain!

Holy moly that makes my brain hurt too.

The effects of ion tokens state that all tokens are removed after executing the maneuver, and ion projector triggers after the maneuver as well... Anyone know an answer for sure?

If I'm assuming correctly it would fall in the same window, and initiative takes over:

If ion projector player has initiative, theirs would resolve first, meaning that the other opponent would clear all tokens after it triggers, breaking the chain the following turn.

If the other ship has initiative, it would remove all tokens first, then ion projector triggers and if it continues to chain, can keep the ship ionized.

I shared with my group and thought I should add obstacle effects as well, which clears up why R2-D2 (astromech) allows you to regen a shield before the rock damage (according to the rules reference, you roll for damage after the Perform Action step).

Only thing I don't understand is why APL triggers after R2-D2 (astro) specifically (in FAQ), when it falls in the same window, and should be resolved by initiative according to the rules.

No if you have an issue with something you bring it up the first time otherwise, you have consented to that style of play for the game. The thing here is that this style of play of revealing multiply dials does not change the outcome of play.

This is rules manipulation at its finest, when you let someone do something until you feel its a critical moment and you pull the rules lawyer book out.

Being silent is being in agreement to this play and is consent. it's not like it took three turns before the opponent had the courage to speak out against this. If you have an issue bring it up the first time.

There are situations where moving as a block and deciding on actions after DOES make a difference. Let's say a block of 4 TIE's hard turns, and then the pilot sees that 2 of the 4 ships don't quite have arc on the target, so he then decides to barrell roll all of them. If they were all moved one at a time, it would have been likely to take a focus on the first TIE or two, and would then not be able to barrell roll the others to get arc.

Before getting into combat range, sure, it doesn't matter, but once combat starts, it can make a difference. This is why I argue that turn 1 communication, or lack thereof, should not be taken as consent for the entire game. That is not how consent works. A simple solution is what I suggested earlier - communicate with your opponent on each turn.

No by revealing dials you are not changing the course of the game. The only examples that do not work (blocking does not as that is moving the model and not revealing) would be dropping bombs and using options to manipulate the dial. The barrel roll action you are implying was not in question, but is something that people do during the movement of the ships as well as boost. The type of situation that is being discussed is usually adding focus tokens, evades, or target locks.

In the situation that you described above, how many people would allow this to happen during the first round of play? This is similar to the guy who posted/bragged about the fact he denied shots in a game because someone had measured from different Y's for a shot when they all have the same pilot skill.

This is exactly how consent works. Consent is the voluntary action of giving approval, there are many forms of consent such as non verbal which is used in this case when an action/play style occurs you have the option to speak against the action. If you do not speak against the action/play style you are giving non verbal consent (voluntarily agreeing to allow this kind of action/play style).

In a perfect world we would all sit down for five minutes before the game and discuss things such as our styles of movement. In reality in tournaments you are often rushing to get things set up, going over your opponent's list, and planning strategy. You are also trying to ensure you have the maximum amount of time before the round ends.

Alright, so how would you handle the situation I described above? Turn 1 they all moved and focused, and let's assume you said that was ok (or said nothing - implying consent, as you would say). Turn 2, they do what I described above - moved as a block, then went to barrell roll all of them. How would you handle that?

In defense of the other player, everything he did is technically legal.

It's also legal for me to fly his ships off the board in the future, should we play again, if he doesn't play precisely by the rules.

Regardless, there are a few fundamental issues independent of this player.

1. The rules don't say what to do in this scenario. Thankfully we should be getting an FAQ or Tournament Rules update in the future.
2. The Tournament Rules which were active at the time specifically state that in Competitive Level events such as Store Championships, "players should not be punished for their lack of understanding in the finer points of X-Wing rules". Given that this scenario is not even covered in the rules, this clearly qualifies as a "finer point of X-wing rules". Therefore the guidance to the TO is to not punish the offending player. The TO ignored this guidance. I did not bring it up at the time, but I should have, especially as in retrospect I realize he was likely unaware of this rule.
3. The TO ruled against the Core Rulebook by not allowing my ships to move. This is blatantly illegal. The TO is allowed to override the FAQ when a mistake is found, but the TO is not allowed to override the core rulebook.

I know we chatted about it in the text but it seems very much like Circular Logic on your part to insist that the rules don't cover what to do when you don't follow the rules.

I have another question though Bob.

Did the TO only say your ships would not get to move after you argued his initial ruling, as when I listened to the show it sounded like you said that whilst tying to sway him you explained that it didn't make sense for your ships to be able to move but not get actions?

I wonder if you had just accepted the initial ruling of the TO than you would not have forced his hand in making the ruling that we all agree is silly?

Kris

I know we chatted about it in the text but it seems very much like Circular Logic on your part to insist that the rules don't cover what to do when you don't follow the rules.

There are many examples of what to do when timings and rules are not followed. This is not one of them, and Alex and Frank stated that it needs needs to be clarified. I'm not sure what your point is.

Did the TO only say your ships would not get to move after you argued his initial ruling, as when I listened to the show it sounded like you said that whilst tying to sway him you explained that it didn't make sense for your ships to be able to move but not get actions?

I didn't want to take the time during the show to go over it in detail, but here is a more in-depth explanation.

I wonder if you had just accepted the initial ruling of the TO than you would not have forced his hand in making the ruling that we all agree is silly?

I disagree with the notion that a player can "force" a TO to rule a certain way, let alone in a manner in direct violation of the core rulebook.

Note -- both the notion that I should automatically be punished for not following the rules, and also the notion that I should automatically not be punished based on "Fly Casual" or some other reason, are irrelevant. The issue at hand is simply looking up what the rules state to do in this scenario. A dial is revealed out of order: what happens? Unfortunately the rules do not say.

I know we chatted about it in the text but it seems very much like Circular Logic on your part to insist that the rules don't cover what to do when you don't follow the rules.

There are many examples of what to do when timings and rules are not followed. This is not one of them, and Alex and Frank stated that it needs needs to be clarified. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is as follows;

I see two clear opportunities for the situation you described not to occur.

Both were fully in your hands.

Opportunity 1;

Follow the rules for activating a ship.

Opportunity 2;

Respect the initial decision that the TO made.

You keep stating that the rules don't cover what to do when a dial is revealed out of order. That's is because if you follow the rules than that can not happen. The only way this can happen is if one player is not following the rules (you in this case) or a mistake is made (your example of PS11 Vader flipping before Fel). In this case it is quite clear what you do, if you cant resolve the situation with your opponent than you call a judge.

You followed those procedures but didn't like the call the judge made (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant)

You have to take responsibility for your part in this.

You said yourself that you were having a heated discussion with a TO.

That should NEVER HAPPEN.

Regardless of who you are in X-Wing the TO has to be respected, you have to accept that you have a position of responsibility in the community, especially if you are going to publicly talk about an incident on a Podcast.

You should be striving to set an example for people to follow, do you want that example to be that if you think you know better than a TO you should argue with them?

I believe I spoke about my experience at worlds for Imperial Assault where a judge call flip-flopped on me during the event.

My reaction was to accept it, explain that I must have miss understood the reasoning behind the initial call and then, as I was in an extremely foul mood and did not want to make my opponent uncomfortable I conceded the game.

That is the example I wanted to set for our listeners;

1. That the Judges must be respected, even if you disagree with them.

2. Don't sour the game for your opponent.

I will happily concede that your opponent had forfeited any right to consideration number two by pulling what he did.

The problem I see is that you are using your X-Wing celebrity status to force an issue that need not have been an issue.

Can you imagine if someone who were not on a podcast started a thread on here saying that after arguing with a TO, a ruling had gone against them and that they were complaining to FFG about it?

What kind of reception do you feel that that thread would have gotten?

I don't think that that person would have had people posting saying that the TO is an Idiot, that they should be ridiculed in a video etc, etc.

I think that people would be saying that you should not argue with the TO in the first place.

As I said on the day, when you sent the initial text out. I am overjoyed that you beat the player in question as it was clearly bad form.

What you seem to be missing is any of your responsibility in creating this situation.

I am just extremely uncomfortable with NOVA Squadron Radio encouraging people to argue with a TO, when I don't think any of us actually condone that action.

Kris

You are giving the TO the all the understanding in the world because he is a human who can get fed up, make mistakes, whatever. He is allowed to get fed up, but you give none of the same allowances to Bob. By the way he said it, it seemed he didn't feel the "heated conversation" was the best thing, but it happened. You are letting the TO off the hook for a snap bad judgement out of frustration, but you'll make no such allowances for frustration by someone whom you "work" and/or socialize with - though he is just a human being as well. It seems to me that you think Bob should be held to a higher standard because he is a "celebrity" with influence, while a TO is someone giving their time to enhance the game. The way I see it, people who podcast, do mathwing, create and maintain an index of information and help create a tournament results database are enhancing the game as well and ought to be given a little leeway for mistakes (and given respect!) in the same way - and definitely not taken to task by an associate in a public venue.

I didn't read any of this as an endorsement by Nova Squadron for arguing with TOs. That's interpretation, frankly, is a tremendous over-reach. I think it is making use of pure and simple alarm-ism to make an associate look bad and make yourself look like the "good guy" with higher moral fiber. Nobody endorsed arguing with a TO.

Of course, I think I feel much differently than you about "arguing" with a TO, perhaps. Clearly we should be respectful and avoid "heated discussions", but if the TO is wrong, players should be free to make an educated case.

You are 100% correct, I am holding Bob to a higher mortal standard.

But then I have sat on both sides of the fence. I have given up my time to TO events I would rather be playing in, and dealt with disagreements.

Maybe that gives me a different perspective to Bob on issues like this.

It is Bob's insistence that the TO is wholly at fault that I take umbrage to.

If the TO had come over, uncalled and enforced that ruling than I would be all over them.

As I said in my last post, when I got the text from Bob initially I think I responded along the lines of "I hope you smashed the guy" and specifically remember congratulating him on getting the win in spite of the not perfect environment.

I am over joyed that he had the strength of character to push through that and still win.

But whilst he should be lauded for that, I don't feel it is fair to just blame the TO for the bad call when his initial call has been proven to have been correct by Bob's own conversation with Frank and Alex.

A fact that is never mentioned. The reply backs up that the TO was initially correct until Bob pushed the issue.

Feel free to dislike my opinion on this, Bob knows how much I respect him as a person and a player, his achievements speak for themselves.

Kris

Edit - As for arguing with a TO, I feel that you should be free to make your case to the TO but once the ruling has been made just move on.

If they are wrong then feel bad about it but nothing you can say is going to make the situation any better.

In this case the TO was CORRECT but Bob still though he was wrong so carried on the discussion (heated or not) it is only after this happened that the TO changed his ruling to the Wrong one.

Save us nova squadron you're our only hope.

If you flip a coin and one person guesses heads and the other guesses tails, then one will be right and one will be wrong. Other than bragging rights, who cares?

Alex's reply is irrelevant to the TO's ruling because:

• It didn't exist at the time.
• It is an internal ruling that isn't in the FAQ or Tournament Rules. It does not explain how and why it functions in various situations. If dials are revealed simultaneously, what is the activation order? Do all the ships lose actions or all but the last one because it wasn't interrupted? What happens when a higher PS dial is revealed out of order? All these things and more are still unknown.
• Even if FFG's internal ruling was official in the FAQ/Tournament Rules, the TO would still be in direct violation of the Tournament Rules which state that players are not to be punished for exactly this sort of thing at a Store Championship level event.

As far as it being a heated exchange, while there was some contribution from both of us, I wasn't the one that yelled loud enough that most the room stopped playing to look at us to see what was going on...

While the rules state that players must be respectful of one another, it doesn't explicitly state that the TO has to be respectful of the players, so perhaps some consider this behavior acceptable. Pragmatically the TO can get away with anything, unless it is an actual criminal offense. So if he yells at you and belittles you, then your options are to either leave the store or keep your head low.

If I came across as implying that I did absolutely nothing wrong, and this is 100% on the TO then I apologize. But honestly this feels like another case of Kris antagonistically trying to argue with me, and it's not worth my time or energy to continue the conversation.

On a different topic, I'm a little surprised that we haven't had much feedback on Alex and Frank's balance discussions. I found that section to be very interesting.

2. Don't sour the game for your opponent.

That's exactly what Bob's opponent was doing to him.

If I came across as implying that I did absolutely nothing wrong, and this is 100% on the TO then I apologize. But honestly this feels like another case of Kris antagonistically trying to argue with me, and it's not worth my time or energy to continue the conversation.

Shots fired. Maybe you guys should take this to PM or something. Seems a bit personal at this point.

2. Don't sour the game for your opponent.

That's exactly what Bob's opponent was doing to him.

That's why on the very next line of the post you quoted I say that his opponent had forfeited any right to this consideration from Bob. I fully support Bob's approach to fly harder and do everything he can to win, the fact that he got to call the TO over again for the exact same infraction gives me no small sense of ironic justice.

If I came across as implying that I did absolutely nothing wrong, and this is 100% on the TO then I apologize. But honestly this feels like another case of Kris antagonistically trying to argue with me, and it's not worth my time or energy to continue the conversation.

Shots fired. Maybe you guys should take this to PM or something. Seems a bit personal at this point.

I am sorry you feel this way Bob. I never intended to antagonise you, just to demonstrate that the case was not simply a terrible TO ruling, that more had gone on.

I again laud your strength if character for getting a win in those hostile circumstances.

*Not directly addressed to Bob so that there is no confusion as to tone*

When I say that a heated conversation with a TO should never happen this (I thought anyway) is obviously a two way thing. The player should be respected by the TO. In this specific instance I feel that there were opportunities for both sides to have handled it better and the point of my initial post on this topic was to highlight that.