Did you guys not read my rules query from page 1?

I asked if I had to remind the user of Relentless and Vengeance (same wording as Last Stand).

The answer was yes.

There really does not seem to be much room for argument in that statement. The response explicitly says there is no difference between positive or negative rules, you are required to follow them all the same.

I did.

And I'm saying I received the opposite ruling at an official FFG event.

And the opposite ruling is more in line with all of their other games.

Well, I guess it's whether you put your faith in the rules query response from Paul Winchester and the Organized Play team, or whoever gave the ruling at whatever event you were at.

I'd love if they gave more explicit rules about this stuff.

Cremate, that's a really good idea.

KennedyHawk, the problem is that if you're allowed to skip this mandatory trigger and have it not be cheating, how can you really argue that you're not allowed to skip any mandatory trigger your opponent will let you get away with?

The answer I got from the game designer, which I posted on page 1, says it is both players' responsibility for both positive and negative triggers. If it's your responsibility and you don't follow it, then you're not following the rules.

Both players are responsible for Adapt, Last Stand, Vengeance, Relentless, and other mandatory triggers.

I know you don't want to be responsible for making sure your opponent follows the mandatory Adapt trigger, but you are. It should carry the same weight as any other mandatory rule in the game. Just because it is on your opponent's card and helps your opponent does not matter.

Because there are a lot of command cards (> 100?) and text in the game and shocker, maybe not everyone has every detail minute detail memorized and can recall everything at any given time in a pressure stressful environment. Seems reasonable that the person who brings the list has slightly more responsibility to make sure it is played without missing triggers since the player actually brought the list and had time to prep, read, plan and heck write it down. I played in a tourney and forgot most the whole day to play my elite stormtrooper focus ability. Would I would say my opponents were 1/2 as responsible for letting me forget this? No it is my error, as I was not prepared and it cost me; I needed practice and was playing the elites for the first time. Failure to properly plan and practice and familiarize yourself with your own list should be tactically punished by not playing optimally.

You're mistaking playing optimally with playing correctly.

Last Stand is not an optional ability. When an elite stormtrooper dies, another in the squad becomes focused. Period. That is just what elite stormtroopers do when they die.

You're suggesting it is okay to let your opponent miss the Last Stand trigger. It is not okay to do that, because that is breaking the rules.

There is nothing that says this is somehow less mandatory than other rule in the game just because it benefits your opponent.

You can't keep initiative unless your opponent remembers to take it. You can't attack with your stunned guy unless your opponent reminds you he is stunned. You can't make impossible line of sight attacks unless your opponent calls you out on it.

Similarly, you can't ignore Last Stand unless your opponent remembers to apply it.

At a high competitive level of play, just because something is on your opponent's card does not mean you are free to ignore it if your opponent doesn't remember it.

I am suggesting it is okay to let your opponent miss last stand? Where? I think you are missing the intent part verses a missed trigger due to an error. Everyone already agrees mal-intent (letting missed trigger, ignoring etc.) is wrong and we get that. You keep answering the same question we already know.

Moving on, if a triggered is simply missed due to error then what? That is the more interesting question. Some say it is impossible to distinguish between the two absent a mind reader so is there much one can do?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm never going to distract my opponent from doing his triggers, but nor will I baby them and remind them of the rules on their own cards.

I hope we don't have to play in any events otherwise the judge will be over every time I don't bend over backwards asking you to please focus your units.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm never going to distract my opponent from doing his triggers, but nor will I baby them and remind them of the rules on their own cards.

I hope we don't have to play in any events otherwise the judge will be over every time I don't bend over backwards asking you to please focus your units.

As much as it would make sense for this to be how it works, this is cheating. You can get away with it by saying you forgot too though, so I guess it's all good.

The problem is when you extend this to any other mandatory rule in the game. I really hope I never play someone that tries to get away with skipping every rule they don't like.

Is Imperial Assault big enough that people can stop being helpful and become jerks?

Both players are responsible for maintaining a legal game state. Until the game state becomes illegal, they are not responsible for maintaining matching perspectives on the game state. Awareness is a skill-tester.

That being said- I disagree that Blaise's Adapt trigger is mandatory. It's an ability that you trigger if the condition it met. It's not a trait that automatically occurs when the condition is met.

EDIT- just wanted to clarify- if Blaise's Adapt ability is truly a mandatory trigger, then yes, an opponent should point it out. But- I just don't believe that it is mandatory. I think it is just an ability. The same for the Elite Stormtroopers.

Is Imperial Assault big enough that people can stop being helpful and become jerks?

There are always jerks, regardless of size of the game.

When I played Legend of the Five Rings- the players of that game used to talk about how rude and awful Magic players were. Now, on the whole, yes, there were more rude players in Magic than L5R, but that is because there were so many more players in Magic than L5R. Percentage wise, it was about the same. And over 30+ years of gaming, that is what I've generally found to be true... it's just a part of any group that are jerks. Size of the population that plays the game isn't relevant.

Both players are responsible for maintaining a legal game state. Until the game state becomes illegal, they are not responsible for maintaining matching perspectives on the game state. Awareness is a skill-tester.

That being said- I disagree that Blaise's Adapt trigger is mandatory. It's an ability that you trigger if the condition it met. It's not a trait that automatically occurs when the condition is met.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this statement. It's okay to break rules as long as the resulting game state is legal?

Blaise's ability is worded very similarly to Vengeance, which I asked about and was told I must tell the other player to use. The only difference is instead of "you", it is "choose 1". I would argue it is still mandatory since the structure is "When this happens, do this."

If it said "You MAY choose", then it is optional.

If abilities without costs were optional, there would not be a need for the Errata to Opportunist .

Jyn Odan
The "Opportunist" ability should read:
"After you resolve an attack, if the target suffered 1 or more damage , you may move 1 space."

( May has been inserted.)

So, abilities with costs are optional. Other abilities are mandatory.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm never going to distract my opponent from doing his triggers, but nor will I baby them and remind them of the rules on their own cards.

I hope we don't have to play in any events otherwise the judge will be over every time I don't bend over backwards asking you to please focus your units.

As much as it would make sense for this to be how it works, this is cheating. You can get away with it by saying you forgot too though, so I guess it's all good.

The problem is when you extend this to any other mandatory rule in the game. I really hope I never play someone that tries to get away with skipping every rule they don't like.

I'm not extending this to any other part of the game. I'm extending it to only what I say. My opponent can be responsible for his own triggers. I'm not going to rush past them but when they have a trigger they don't do anything about, I'll ask "Any other actions, any other things?" If they move on then the game will move on. There are other MANDATORY things that are essential to the game. If my opponent forgets to add points for defeating a unit, obviously this is a framework mechanic, it has to happen. If the first player token doesn't get passed, this is mandatory.

If they forget a trigger and I don't hold their hand to remind them I'm not cheating. I'm not even doing it with ill intention. I'm letting them control and make the decisions with their own army. Just as I would with my own.

I definitely understand this mindset, and I also ask the opponent about each step to both move on the game and also to give them the opportunity to skip things. When I play a competitive game, I want to do everything within the rules to win.

There is no decision to be made in this case, though. That's the definition of mandatory triggers.

Let's pretend there was a deployment card that said "When you die, your opponent chooses one figure to focus."

What would your opinion be on this? Can you just pull your figure off the board when it dies and ask your opponent "Any other things?" and if they don't realize your card says that you get away with it?

Is this somehow different from Last Stand or Vengeance because it is on your card and not theirs?

My opinion would be that this ability effects my opponents figures so he or she should be responsible focusing figure. At the same time j am responsible for my figure that died s I would bring up his death reaction. This is a different situation as it involves both players figures.

with storm troopers when one of my opponents figures dies he focuses another figure from that group. Something happens to one of his figures and he does something. This in no way involves my figures or my actions so the responsibility is on that player.

The test on my opponents card is not text that I am going to check or be responsible for.

If they forget a trigger and I don't hold their hand to remind them I'm not cheating. I'm not even doing it with ill intention. I'm letting them control and make the decisions with their own army. Just as I would with my own.

Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating.

Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done.

If they forget a trigger and I don't hold their hand to remind them I'm not cheating. I'm not even doing it with ill intention. I'm letting them control and make the decisions with their own army. Just as I would with my own.

If they forget a mandatory trigger, and you spot this and don't correct them then you are breaking the game rules intentionally.

Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating.

Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done.

This is where we disagree

They are breaking the game rules not me. I have no action to take otherwise I may as well just play the game saints myself

If they forget a trigger and I don't hold their hand to remind them I'm not cheating. I'm not even doing it with ill intention. I'm letting them control and make the decisions with their own army. Just as I would with my own.

If they forget a mandatory trigger, and you spot this and don't correct them then you are breaking the game rules intentionally.

Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating.

Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done.

This is where we disagree

They are breaking the game rules not me. I have no action to take otherwise I may as well just play the game saints myself

Well, I would disagree. If it is required and you notice it, you are technically obligated to keep the correct game state as per the gamesmanship maturity rules in the tournament doc. If you are interested in playing correctly, you should say something. Having said that, and as people have seen in actual tournaments, it is impossible to distinguish if you are intentionally ignoring the rules to gain an advantage, so the ultimate responsibility usually falls on the controlling player. . .

So, yes, you can gain an 'unfair' advantage by not saying anything but it is still wrong since it is required. But we dont punish this player because it may have been an honest oversight... better to let a 'cheater' go then punish a new player or someone wrapped up in one's own strategy.

Personally, I think all positive abilities should say 'may' to make this entire argument moot and force the controlling player to play optimally but that is not what is says unfortunately and clarified by the OP question to the designers.

If they forget a trigger and I don't hold their hand to remind them I'm not cheating. I'm not even doing it with ill intention. I'm letting them control and make the decisions with their own army. Just as I would with my own.

If they forget a mandatory trigger, and you spot this and don't correct them then you are breaking the game rules intentionally.

Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating.

Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done.

This is where we disagree

They are breaking the game rules not me. I have no action to take otherwise I may as well just play the game saints myself

Well, I would disagree. If it is required and you notice it, you are technically obligated to keep the correct game state as per the gamesmanship maturity rules in the tournament doc. If you are interested in playing correctly, you should say something. Having said that, and as people have seen in actual tournaments, it is impossible to distinguish if you are intentionally ignoring the rules to gain an advantage, so the ultimate responsibility usually falls on the controlling player. . .

So, yes, you can gain an 'unfair' advantage by not saying anything but it is still wrong since it is required. But we dont punish this player because it may have been an honest oversight... better to let a 'cheater' go then punish a new player or someone wrapped up in one's own strategy.

Personally, I think all positive abilities should say 'may' to make this entire argument moot and force the controlling player to play optimally but that is not what is says unfortunately and clarified by the OP question to the designers.

You use such negative language.

I'm not saying a player in good manners shouldn't say anything but they should not be held responsible for it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because no matter how many times I state my argument you just splash in my face that I' a dirty cheater but you wouldn't hold it against me in the kindness of your heart.

Good thing we have such saints as you to forgive my sins.

I've read the tournament document again and I see where it says you need to maintain a clear game state.

I don't see how this applies to triggering abilities FOR YOUR OPPONENT.

If they forget a trigger and I don't hold their hand to remind them I'm not cheating. I'm not even doing it with ill intention. I'm letting them control and make the decisions with their own army. Just as I would with my own.

If they forget a mandatory trigger, and you spot this and don't correct them then you are breaking the game rules intentionally.

Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating.

Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done.

This is where we disagree

They are breaking the game rules not me. I have no action to take otherwise I may as well just play the game saints myself

Well, I would disagree. If it is required and you notice it, you are technically obligated to keep the correct game state as per the gamesmanship maturity rules in the tournament doc. If you are interested in playing correctly, you should say something. Having said that, and as people have seen in actual tournaments, it is impossible to distinguish if you are intentionally ignoring the rules to gain an advantage, so the ultimate responsibility usually falls on the controlling player. . .

So, yes, you can gain an 'unfair' advantage by not saying anything but it is still wrong since it is required. But we dont punish this player because it may have been an honest oversight... better to let a 'cheater' go then punish a new player or someone wrapped up in one's own strategy.

Personally, I think all positive abilities should say 'may' to make this entire argument moot and force the controlling player to play optimally but that is not what is says unfortunately and clarified by the OP question to the designers.

You use such negative language.

I'm not saying a player in good manners shouldn't say anything but they should not be held responsible for it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because no matter how many times I state my argument you just splash in my face that I' a dirty cheater but you wouldn't hold it against me in the kindness of your heart.

Good thing we have such saints as you to forgive my sins.

I've read the tournament document again and I see where it says you need to maintain a clear game state.

I don't see how this applies to triggering abilities FOR YOUR OPPONENT.

Dude, it's not me that is the rules. If you want to take advantage of it that is your business. It is clear cut and dry, not me being negative or something to disagree with, it is the rules. Havent said that, I would personally just FAQ these triggers as 'may'.

Question:

In a competitive tournament setting, am I required to remind my opponent about certain abilities that the cards do not suggest are optional. For example, the Trandoshan Hunters and IG88 have the Relentless ability that says when you declare an attack on a target within 3 spaces, the target takes 1 strain. If the opponent declares an attack and does not mention the relentless ability, am I forced to remind him according to the rules since it is not optional. Same question for Royal Guards Vengeance ability. If the answer is no for these, are there any abilities where I am required to remind the opponent?

Answer:

T he answer is yes, both players are responsible for maintaining the game state. Mandatory triggers are both players responsibility to recognize, both positive and negative .

You keep posting the same thing but there are no text in the rules FAQ or tournament guidelines to back it up. There is a specific entry on missed opportunities though

You keep posting the same thing but there are no text in the rules FAQ or tournament guidelines to back it up. There is a specific entry on missed opportunities though

You do realize I am different person from the OP and Majushi?

I am not sure why you are missing this, you want FFG to have an entry to define mandatory?

In the tourney FAQ it states

" Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them."

Under 'unsportsmanlike conduct'

I mean answer it yourself, if your choosing to ignore mandatory game effects what are you doing?

I am not sure why you are missing this, you want FFG to have an entry to define mandatory?

In the tourney FAQ it states

" Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them."

Under 'unsportsmanlike conduct'

I mean answer it yourself, if your choosing to ignore mandatory game effects what are you doing?

I'm missing it because giving your opponent time to perform their actions and recall their triggers, and them missing a trigger ON THEIR FIGURE, does not means the other player is a cheater. Which many here have said.

Don't presume to know who I am or how I play. Frankly I often remind my opponent if they are going to miss triggers but I do it because I'm playing to have fun and enjoy the game. Not because it's a rule that I remind them how to play their own squad. There's no valid reason and nothing in the rule book for someone who chooses not to point out misses or mistakes to be ridiculed and called a cheater. I know many players in many games that will not point something out to their opponents advantage. No one in any competitive game should be expected to. I'm astounded that so many people really believe this is what is meant by maintaining a legal game state and playing within the rules. If this situation has come up if anything the player who owns he figure is cheating not his or her opponent. Why else would there be an entire section on missed triggers.

Let me just start off by saying that I don't think anyone here is ridiculing anyone. We're just trying to get a better understanding of the rules. I apologize if the tone of my posts comes off that way.

Missed Opportunities, as I understand it, refers to things like missing Luke's reroll ability and other optional abilities.

I think this really just boils down to you disagreeing with the response from the rules query I submitted. Somewhat reasonably so, if you ask me. MTG avoids this problem by having all beneficial effects be optional, though there are a few cards where mandatory triggers on your cards will do bad things and you can try to ignore them if your opponent is oblivious. There are some quite funny ones, like you have to pick 1 of 4 effects every turn until you've used them all. 3 are really good and 1 is "You lose the game." Your opponent is required to remind you if you misplay the beneficial ones, just like if you accidentally skip the "lose the game" trigger.

Back to IA.

I'm curious where you draw the line on these mandatory effects:

Let's say your opponent rolls 5 damage and you roll 1 block. He then says, "Okay, so take 3 damage."

Do you correct him?

Your opponent attacks with a focused unit but doesn't roll the extra green die.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent does Saber Strike with Luke, but doesn't account for the pierce 3 in his damage calculation.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent shoots with an Elite Rebel Trooper but doesn't apply the aim bonus even though the trooper has not moved.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent is using the new Prey on the Weak the weak upgrade, and the effect applies for the current attack. But your opponent forgets to apply the pierce 1.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent attacks at melee range with a trandoshan but does not apply the +1 damage from Scattergun.

Do you correct him? What about Relentless?

You attack a figure next to 3p0 and your opponent doesn't do the +evade in his calculation.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent's attack makes range, but he thinks the attack missed.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent controls a terminal but doesn't draw the extra card.

Do you correct him?

Your opponent accidentally moves 1 extra space, but that will put his figure in range of yours to kill and he doesn't realize it.

Do you correct him?

These are all mandatory effects that your opponent arguably "controls", so his mistake, just let it happen?

The problem with not having a clear rule around mandatory effects is that you're basically letting a malicious player abuse as much of the game as possible with no consequences. I'm not saying you are a malicious cheater, you probably just disagree with the cases like Last Stand, Relentless, and Adapt. But those are all mandatory like the above, and need to be enforced just as much unless they get FAQ'd to be optional.

Here's the thing, in a casual setting, play however you like no one cares. In a tournament setting do your best to uphold the rules and how ffg wants you to play the game regardless of your personal beleifs. Like I have said, I too disagree with positive benefits as being mandatory, but you know what I will do my best to uphold them.

Don't get defensive on this, just follow their guidance like it or not or don't play in the tournament setting if you refuse to, it is really that simple. There is no comparison with other games because this is not others games.

Now if your intentally allowing mandatory effects to be missed you are doing something wrong, and you are on notice. Can you get away it and use the missed opportunity rule as cover, of course but your still doing something wrong.

These are the rules, yet I also distinguished you cannot distinguish between the 'cheater' and an honest oversight.

Think of it as a 2 year taking a candy bar for the store and putting it in his pocket. Compare it with a teen taking a candy bar from the store. The end result is the same but there is quite a moral difference between the two.

You have yet to convince me that not playing my opponents figure for him is cheating. There is nothing in the rules stating it is. Until such exists it won't be seen as cheating. The rules everyone has pointed too are in almost every other FFG game and none of them rule on the side you all seem to think they do. I see now reason for IA to be any different.