Last event I was at I got called an ******* for denying a shot with a PS 8 when my opponent fired with his PS 7 first. My opponent took it well, but someone I consider a friend who had the bye and was observing the game said that I was being an *******, that what I was doing was sh*tty, and that he hoped karma catches up to me.

All in the name of flying casually. I like the guy, he's one of my favorite opponents. But now I have to deal with this hostile atmosphere.

I can't seriously pretend to be offended, but I'd rather play the game in a polite atmosphere with friends. I don't expect him to allow me missed triggers.

Some people detest the atmosphere under which every slip up of that kind, consequential or not, will be brutally exploited by the opponent. It can make the game feel pressured like an exam or worse confrontational. A lot of people don't like that in a game they're playing to relax and enjoy.

Outside of a tournament, if you want people to play with you, you've got to conduct play in a way they're comfortable with. They're not obligated to play with you and if they don't enjoy playing you they won't. While I'm generally on good form I don't enjoy playing against an opponent that's looking for every timing slip up he can to latch onto. My response won't be to threaten you or get angry. It'll just be to not play you again.

Inside of a tournament, it's a case of choosing maximising your chances of winning a few bits of plastic and bragging rights or maximising the quality of the atmosphere. Again, whichever is more important to you.

also, in the case of accidentally shooting with the 7 instead of the 8 first, unless you had a ship firing inbetween, whats the big deal? there are so many things that happen ina tourney, jitters to excitement to fatigue... why be an ass like that and deny the shot? I dont think i would ever do that... unless of course my opponent has already proved himself to be the same kind of ass. Then, I'll be a bit vindictive I'm sure

I'm just waiting for someone to enlighten me as to what benefits there may actually be. Waiting for FFG to comment in herebis an exercise in futility as it's not how they roll, so I'm asking the community. I doubt I have but it's always possible I've missed something to justify them.

There is none. Someone probably figured it was a good idea for one game and it's been copy pasted into all of them as if one ruling would ever fit every game they make.

It was a blanket addition copy pasted into all FFG games without an iota of thought put into it. A couple of months back the X-Wing rules had a rule added to it that alt art cards must be sleeved so you can't tell them apart from standard cards from their backs: a copy paste from the LCGs by someone who clearly doesn't even know the rules of X-Wing (because if you did you'd know that's completely pointless). We've now had some severe QC issues with the prize support too.

Organized Play seems to be a bit of a mess right now.

It's a thermal exhaust port sized cockup from FFG.

I don't see you building a planet-sized space station with only one small thermal exhaust port. Whoever designed that thing deserves some kind of award for both security AND energy efficiency.

also, in the case of accidentally shooting with the 7 instead of the 8 first, unless you had a ship firing inbetween, whats the big deal? there are so many things that happen ina tourney, jitters to excitement to fatigue... why be an ass like that and deny the shot? I dont think i would ever do that... unless of course my opponent has already proved himself to be the same kind of ass. Then, I'll be a bit vindictive I'm sure

Because the rules allow you to and it improves your chances of winning. If winning is all you value then that's what you'll do.

I really don't see any solid argume t j. Favour of them or any substantial example of what they bring to the game to warrant their downsides. The excellent article about MTG and the draw system there was very good. They don't much like it but they have it as it's needed. Why do we need them?

Ned Flanders says best what they contribute.

It's a thermal exhaust port sized cockup from FFG.

Oh, so it's only about 2 meters wide. No big deal.

Oh, so it's only about 2 meters wide. No big deal.

That's bigger than the board.

I'm just waiting for someone to enlighten me as to what benefits there may actually be. Waiting for FFG to comment in herebis an exercise in futility as it's not how they roll, so I'm asking the community. I doubt I have but it's always possible I've missed something to justify them.

There is none. Someone probably figured it was a good idea for one game and it's been copy pasted into all of them as if one ruling would ever fit every game they make.

It was a blanket addition copy pasted into all FFG games without an iota of thought put into it. A couple of months back the X-Wing rules had a rule added to it that alt art cards must be sleeved so you can't tell them apart from standard cards from their backs: a copy paste from the LCGs by someone who clearly doesn't even know the rules of X-Wing (because if you did you'd know that's completely pointless). We've now had some severe QC issues with the prize support too.

Organized Play seems to be a bit of a mess right now.

Thanks Asmodee!!

It's. Not collusion. Collusion. Is done in secret. This is not the players or TO at fault. They followed the rules. Don't like the rules fine ******* don't but don't get pissy with people who followed the rules as they currently exist.

If any of the players talked about it at any point before the situation actually arose then it is collusion.

And I agree with a few of the other poster's points in that the TO should not have allowed the players who had the potential to fall out of the top 8 by virtue of a loss to take an ID that would cost someone else (at least one player apparently) the opportunity to make the cut. This is detrimental to the integrity of the game/event and, I feel (as do some others evidentially), falls under the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule.

If any of the players talked about it at any point before the situation actually arose then it is collusion.

Explicitly legal FFG approved collusion.

The whole no thought given to it argument sounds about right.

My confusion is that there have been a fair number of people that seem to be arguing in favour of ID's but they haven't given any reason yet.

I'm not interested in the whole win enough early enough to avoid it argument that applies to the rules as they are, but rather in an argument for why they should be as they are. For such a long thread of back and to, there is a distinct lack of that.

Surely would make for a much more I tereting read than this morality BS that the thread seems stuck on?

And the rules also say that any discussions must be had in front of the TO. If they discussed it at all before the TO was present it is also collusion and against the rules.

Before any discussions were had whatsoever the TO should have been called over and it sorted out then. Anything short of that is against the rules.

We know as they looked at the standings someone said "wouldn't it be funny if the top eight took the ID" someone who was there said as much, that's certainly planting the idea.

I don't know why people are hanging on the idea that collusion has to be secret. It just normally is because it's illegal in business.

also, in the case of accidentally shooting with the 7 instead of the 8 first, unless you had a ship firing inbetween, whats the big deal? there are so many things that happen ina tourney, jitters to excitement to fatigue... why be an ass like that and deny the shot? I dont think i would ever do that... unless of course my opponent has already proved himself to be the same kind of ass. Then, I'll be a bit vindictive I'm sure

Because the rules allow you to and it improves your chances of winning. If winning is all you value then that's what you'll do.

This is a terrible mindset to view tournament play.

Here's the thing: a tournament is at it's best when every single player is playing as optimally as possible. There are a million different things that can introduce "unfairness". What if you had to play against all people who forced you to play exactly by the rules, and I got to play against people who let me retrace and cover my screw ups? Shooting order can have huge implications (do I shoot at that ship now to make sure it's dead, or do I hope that my lower PS ship that can't see any other ships kills it later and shoot at a different target) which is why it needs to be enforced. You can't leave things like that up to a nebulous "sportsmanship" rule in competition. It's far worse than anything else.

It's. Not collusion. Collusion. Is done in secret. This is not the players or TO at fault. They followed the rules. Don't like the rules fine ******* don't but don't get pissy with people who followed the rules as they currently exist.

If any of the players talked about it at any point before the situation actually arose then it is collusion.

And I agree with a few of the other poster's points in that the TO should not have allowed the players who had the potential to fall out of the top 8 by virtue of a loss to take an ID that would cost someone else (at least one player apparently) the opportunity to make the cut. This is detrimental to the integrity of the game/event and, I feel (as do some others evidentially), falls under the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule.

1) The players didn't need to collude. Anyone who took an ID was in, nearly anyone who didn't was at risk of falling out.

2) This obsession with "fairness" to players not in your game blows my mind. When you are across a table from an opponent, your only consideration should be for you and your opponent. To take anything else into consideration is an exercise in futility. Allowing TOs to make arbitrary decisions on who is allowed to ID is far more detrimental to the integrity of the event.

It is NOT allowing them to do it until it's beneficial to you then calling them out specifically to get an advantage.

It simply doesn't matter as far as the rules if the other person gets an advantage or not. Also if under a 3 strikes policy the point in which you stop letting them fix mistakes, you are always gaining an advantage.

I'd absolutely be calling a TO over and claiming prior consent.

And I hope the TO would ask you to point out where exactly in the rules such a thing exists, which you of course can't, because it doesn't. There is no such rule, and every time someone is subject to a missed opportunity the other player has the right to deny it.

And as a TO, I would absolutely say that prior consent (even nonverbal) means you don't get to just change your mind when it becomes convenient.

Then I hope you never become a TO, or at least actually read the rules, since you're making crap up that doesn't exist.

You can tell them you're removing consent and they don't get it in future turns, but not until *after* they've been told so, and I'd let em have it for the round in quesiton.

For the 3rd time, perhaps the 3rd strike for you... There is no such thing. You don't have to remove consent, you have the option each time to allow or not allow them to take a missed opportunity. Having done so once in no way requires you to keep doing so.

Here's the thing: a tournament is at it's best when every single player is playing as optimally as possible.

Is it?

I'd say the "best" tournament for a plastic miniatures game is one where everyone enjoys themselves and leaves smiling.

Here's the thing: a tournament is at it's best when every single player is playing as optimally as possible.

Is it?

I'd say the "best" tournament for a plastic miniatures game is one where everyone enjoys themselves and leaves smiling.

It's a militant casual run!!!

The whole no thought given to it argument sounds about right.

My confusion is that there have been a fair number of people that seem to be arguing in favour of ID's but they haven't given any reason yet.

I'm not interested in the whole win enough early enough to avoid it argument that applies to the rules as they are, but rather in an argument for why they should be as they are. For such a long thread of back and to, there is a distinct lack of that.

Surely would make for a much more I tereting read than this morality BS that the thread seems stuck on?

It is important to note, that the calls for intentional draws is likely coming from another game, most likely the Netrunner crowd.

I moved with my Alphas at PS 1.

He moved his PS 2 Palpshuttle.

Then he moved all of his PS 4 ships at the same time.

Then Omega Leader.

Forgot if he went on to move Omega Leader and then tried to put focuses down on his 3 PS 4's thereby missing his opportunities for actions with all of his PS 4 ships, or if he went to focus with all his PS 4's before moving Omega Leader and only skipping 2 actions.

Either way, wasted a free Crack Squadron/Wampa, and since he had no focuses he didn't kill an Interceptor. He rolled plenty of focus results, haha.

Everything was moved in proper PS order, he just skipped a bunch of action opportunities and I used it to get an easy win.

Out of curiosity, is this the "MajorJuggler incident" (if I may jump on the bandwagon of coming up with catchy names for these things) that was discussed so much after the recent Nova Squadron podcast? The one where the TO ultimately ruled in such a way that ships didn't move?

No sir. I can see how it kind of looks related. sometimes it seems like the podcasts and whatnot are an infuence on what goes on with the game but they are really just platforms for groups of friends to make something similar to a radio show from home.

It is pretty rare for something the podcast dudes talk about to become an actual issue amongst the player base.

An interesting opinion from the number 10 player

http://www.notsuchabadpilot.com/uncategorized/a-word-about-the-intentional-draws-in-roanoke/

I'd love to make a Hitler rant vid about this whole thing, but after the misinterpretation and general crapstorm derailment that followed the last one I saw, I think I'd better not.....

An interesting opinion from the number 10 player

http://www.notsuchabadpilot.com/uncategorized/a-word-about-the-intentional-draws-in-roanoke/

If he was going for almost-clever, almost-funny, and almost-not-obnoxious, then he nailed it.

You would not believe the amount of angry posts I've seen from people that have never met me, calling for my head. I can ignore all of that from random anonymous internet trolls, but it was really Doug's Facebook post that set me off. I try to make sure my "public persona" is a good ambassador for the game, since I know a lot of you only know me through podcasts and posts, but even I have limits.

So I'm Iron Man, not Cap, right?

Regardless of where FFG stands with the rule, I have to say I am more disappointed by the posts the two of you wrote than anything else, really.

I can see where both are coming from, but... Couldn't both of you just have taken a deep breath before letting all of that out?

*sigh*

It is important to note, that the calls for intentional draws is likely coming from another game, most likely the Netrunner crowd.

I'm not sure Netrunner can draw.

And as a TO, I would absolutely say that prior consent (even nonverbal) means you don't get to just change your mind when it becomes convenient.

Then I hope you never become a TO, or at least actually read the rules, since you're making crap up that doesn't exist.

I could see the opponent being cautioned for poor sportsmanship, as disingenously allowing/encouraging an incorrect sequence of actions (moving all ships in a formation then taking all their actions) and then invoking the rules at the optimal moment falls under that definition. However, the fact remains that you can't move all your equal PS ships then take all their actions. What is wrong here isn't the player being disallowed from taking their actions Round 2. It's them being allowed to take their actions Round 1 for the purpose of disallowing them Round 2.

You would not believe the amount of angry posts I've seen from people that have never met me, calling for my head. I can ignore all of that from random anonymous internet trolls, but it was really Doug's Facebook post that set me off. I try to make sure my "public persona" is a good ambassador for the game, since I know a lot of you only know me through podcasts and posts, but even I have limits.

So I'm Iron Man, not Cap, right?

Regardless of where FFG stands with the rule, I have to say I am more disappointed by the posts the two of you wrote than anything else, really.

I can see where both are coming from, but... Couldn't both of you just have taken a deep breath before letting all of that out?

*sigh*

There's some context to those I believe you're probably missing.