This video shows the reason cheating can (and is) a real problem for the victim. If you point it out at the time he will just claim it's an accident and will not likely do it again, “OH! Sorry, man. I’m nervous!”. I have had players pull shenanigans on me several times and have SEEN cheating many times covering events. Most of the cheating is small-time stuff, but cheating nonetheless. I've seen people nudge ships, fiddle with dials, take actions and use abilities they KNEW were unavailable, move bases into templates to tighten a turn, you name it.

Many people honestly believe that if you don't know the game well enough to recognize they are taking liberties, then that is on you (trust me, this is NOT an unusual POV). I don't often tell people they are "wrong" when I disagree with them, but that is straight-up wrong. If you believe it is your opponent's responsibility to stop you doing something you know you should not be able to, then you, sir, are a s**t-bag cheat liar. I am not a serious comp player precisely because of this sort of thing (... and I don't have much time... and I am not very good...)

If I catch you cheating me, then your tourney will get lots easier, because I will simply forfeit and tell you that you are a cheat and a f**khead and I refuse to continue to play with you. It is not worth my time to deal with foolishness like this, and that dude pushing his ships back (and ANY donkey who cheats at toy spaceships) really needs to reflect a bit on why he is such a waste of space.

Internet forum witch-hunts piss me off.

I don't completely agree.

I don't like it when people try to infer things. For example, we can't really cast judgement on if he is or isn't cheating. I also agree that sometimes people see any fragment of sloppy play or a forgetful moment and instantly assume ill intent.

On the other hand, without the internet folks getting all rabble roused about it, this may have stayed in the dark. It came to light and was presented to FFG OP staff to make a decision on the matter.

I also like having these discussions because I frequently am a TO and/or Judge and knowing about these situations is benefitial. Having prior time to think about them helps because I can decide what I would do in a situation like that if I saw it or it was brought to my attention.

As a TO, you have to be willing to infer intent. Otherwise, short of a confession from the player, you could never conclude that a player was cheating.

Strongly disagree. As TO you have to know the rules. It someone breaks them, even when unintentional, in away which discredit the tournament integrity you just disqualify that guy. Moving nearly 2 cm backwards on a simple straight and then ignoring the first measurement of R1, shooting and taking that shuttle from the board. Jup, invalids the game and thus all further games. They guy should be out and a lot of people getting one up on their final placings.

On top of that you get that thing on minute 12, which is disgusting and as well very advantageous because it keeps the ship aligned with the borders and thus easier to move.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, or frankly if you read my entire post before responding.

Cheating is a purposeful act. You can't accidentally do it, thus it requires intent. So either you are willing to infer it or the only way you can conclude a player was cheating is if they admit to it.

Violating the games rules accidentally can not be cheating. But that is not to say there shouldn't be consequences for things deemed accidents, which is exactly what the portion of my post that you did not quote said. There are plenty of accidents that are irreparable and thus should result in a game loss for the offending player, cheating or not. If the TO believes that the error were purposefully committed then they upgrade that to a DQ.

Nor is there any reason to automatically resort to a DQ. Even if a player violates the rules in a manner that can't be corrected, the recourse should be a game loss in most cases. Only if the TO concludes it was purposful (cheating), if there is a pattern of behavior (cheating), or in the few cases there would be no way for the player to continue (illegal list). Going for the DQ for any and all non-correctable errors is needlessly heavy handed.

Internet forum witch-hunts piss me off.

I don't completely agree.

I don't like it when people try to infer things. For example, we can't really cast judgement on if he is or isn't cheating. I also agree that sometimes people see any fragment of sloppy play or a forgetful moment and instantly assume ill intent.

On the other hand, without the internet folks getting all rabble roused about it, this may have stayed in the dark. It came to light and was presented to FFG OP staff to make a decision on the matter.

I also like having these discussions because I frequently am a TO and/or Judge and knowing about these situations is benefitial. Having prior time to think about them helps because I can decide what I would do in a situation like that if I saw it or it was brought to my attention.

As a TO, you have to be willing to infer intent. Otherwise, short of a confession from the player, you could never conclude that a player was cheating.

Strongly disagree. As TO you have to know the rules. It someone breaks them, even when unintentional, in away which discredit the tournament integrity you just disqualify that guy. Moving nearly 2 cm backwards on a simple straight and then ignoring the first measurement of R1, shooting and taking that shuttle from the board. Jup, invalids the game and thus all further games. They guy should be out and a lot of people getting one up on their final placings.

On top of that you get that thing on minute 12, which is disgusting and as well very advantageous because it keeps the ship aligned with the borders and thus easier to move.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, or frankly if you read my entire post before responding.

Cheating is a purposeful act. You can't accidentally do it, thus it requires intent. So either you are willing to infer it or the only way you can conclude a player was cheating is if they admit to it.

Violating the games rules accidentally can not be cheating. But that is not to say there shouldn't be consequences for things deemed accidents, which is exactly what the portion of my post that you did not quote said. There are plenty of accidents that are irreparable and thus should result in a game loss for the offending player, cheating or not. If the TO believes that the error were purposefully committed then they upgrade that to a DQ.

Nor is there any reason to automatically resort to a DQ. Even if a player violates the rules in a manner that can't be corrected, the recourse should be a game loss in most cases. Only if the TO concludes it was purposful (cheating), if there is a pattern of behavior (cheating), or in the few cases there would be no way for the player to continue (illegal list). Going for the DQ for any and all non-correctable errors is needlessly heavy handed.

" you have to be willing to infer intent.", is the part I disagree with. Intent is for the most part irrelevant. It's irrelevant if the guy is cheating on purpose or just breaking the rules out of other reasons. In a case like this when the TO notice after the guy already played the finals DQ is the only way to deal with and it does not matter at all of the breaking of the rules was intentional or not.

I do agree with you, when you say that an automatic loss would be enough if the TO catch up in time.

As TO going with "when in doubt, for the accused" sounds like a much better approach than inferring malice when stupidity would be a sufficient explanation. As you in either case give out losses or DQs to the offender there is really no point in just guessing on intent without solid evidence.

Ignorance is only a substitute for negligence once. Once informed (i.e. warned) ignorance becomes negligence, and negligence is not a defense that is accepted anywhere. Repeated negligence becomes intent, and intent is cheating.

My two cents, watching the video, at 4:30, the moves were "sloppy" at best. It ***could*** be argued that the third ship to move up was moved more carefully because there were ships in front of it that could be nudged, so he took more care in moving this one.... That being said, the second ship's movement was almost clearly an intentional pull back as the template was being removed. I didn't watch past the 4:30 incident, so I'm not giving it further weight at this time.

edit - watched it at 25% speed - all three ships were moved with completley different methods of contact. Ship one, he had both hands on the template, and moved the ship back. Ship two, he had his hand on the ship base (right hand) and still allowed the template hand (left) to force the ship backwards. Ship three, he firmly secured the ship with his right hand before addressing it with the template. This, to me, is the real indication of guilt, in that, at best, he knew his previous moves to be suspect at best.

Though at 19m ish, the imperial player never reveals the dial, so we assume the maneuver is correct?

All in all, this is some stupid sloppy play.

Follow up, at 31:12 ish, the Imperial player gets super sloppy with Whisper, and drags the model towards himself before getting the template in there, possibly, if intentionally, to make sure he doesn't rock himself. Also, stop waddling in place. Holy hell. Between Shifty McButterpants on the left and SlowPlay on the right (7 minutes to set dials? really?), I'm surprised I haven't had a seizure already.

This entire game sucks so far.

the paint on those bases is very thick..... i found spraying them leaves a thinner coat and you can use things like an old mouse pad (cut to fit and super glued inside the base) as a great movement/bump/slip/spacual drifting stopper

I think the pictures make the paint look thick. Its only two coats of spray paint on the UNDERSIDE of the bases. Not anywhere a template would be placed against. Also, the bases do not sit above a table with a starfield. They may sit a few hairs above a glass/hard table.