EDIT: Both opponents in the below videos have made guest appearances in this topic and we thank them for the insight! Turns out, while still illegal, the gentleman in this video just happen to mark his damage deck with slips of paper containing his name and they assure us there was no malicious intent.

*** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt *** Not a witch-hunt ***

(for you ObiWonka)

Something I noticed in a match...

The rules state that it is illegal to mark, in any way, the back-side of your damage deck cards in a way that would allow you (or appear to allow you) to interpret or track the critical effect on the reverse side (i.e. track your damage deck in any capacity) .

From Tournament Regulations:

Don't break the rules.

I've never noticed a problem with this? Why do you feel a PSA is needed?

I've never noticed a problem with this? Why do you feel a PSA is needed?

The winner of a small tournament did just this. No proof of malicious intent or use to gain an unfair advantage ("counting") through differentiated backings - but there it is.

I also wonder why this needs to be pointed out.

If you are supposed to RANDOMLY draw from a deck of cards then it is essential that all cards be indistinguishable until they are drawn and shown. If they aren't you might as well play with the DD face-up so you know what the next card will be even if it is turned face-down as it is dealt to you.

I also wonder why this needs to be pointed out.

If you are supposed to RANDOMLY draw from a deck of cards then it is essential that all cards be indistinguishable until they are drawn and shown. If they aren't you might as well play with the DD face-up so you know what the next card will be even if it is turned face-down as it is dealt to you.

I point this out because someone marked their card backings in a weird way and won a store tournament.

If you mark all of your card backs with, say, stickers, but mark Direct Hit! cards (or other undesirable critical effects) in a way that is differentiated from the rest, you can make informed decision based on:

a) the face-down damage cards already dealt, and

b) the next card on your deck.

For example: If I know (through some engineering as described above) that the next damage card in my deck is not a Direct Hit!, I may choose to not spend a focus (to negate a crit or avoid Gunner) or use Palp to cancel a crit or boost to get out of arc, etc..

It may seem small, but it is definitely an advantage.

See something, say something.

You don't need to tell us. What you SHOULD do is call the TO on him even if its is not your game. Marking your damage deck is a clear violation of the rules.

You don't need to tell us. What you SHOULD do is call the TO on him even if its is not your game. Marking your damage deck is a clear violation of the rules.

This thread serves as a reminder - don't worry about telling other people what they "need" and "need not" post.

Also, this was spotted on a video, not in real time - so maybe this thread is for that guy's opponent, who clearly needs to be told that his opponent was cheating.

At least linked to the video or tell us how exactly he "marked his cards weird"...

This thread is stay-at-home-mom-on-Facebook passive-aggressiveness level!

At least linked to the video or tell us how exactly he "marked his cards weird"...

This thread is stay-at-home-mom-on-Facebook passive-aggressiveness level!

Yoooo.. Low-blow. But I'll take it. I should've known better...

This event happend to see the individual in two different matches (see the left side of the play area) - and please watch both videos before saying that all the stickers are in the same location.

Semi-Finals @ 19:23:

...

Finals @ 18:35 and 23:27:

...

Again, re-iterating that this is not proof of anything, just an observation of a "no-no"

I've never noticed a problem with this? Why do you feel a PSA is needed?

The winner of a small tournament did just this. No proof of malicious intent or use to gain an unfair advantage ("counting") through differentiated backings - but there it is.

Yoooo.. Low-blow. But I'll take it. I should've known better...

Much better with the video. And yes, that damage deck would be illegal and if anyone had called over a TO he probably would've had to un-sleeve it (assuming the stickers are on the sleeves).

As one of the players on the right side of one of those matches, I feel the need to speak up. They were not stickers, but slips of paper inserted into the card sleeves. They happened to shift around when the cards were moved around. As his opponent, I never felt as though he was cheating in any way, and neither should any of you.

Witch hunt aside, you are correct: it is illegal to mark your deck.

I concur with Obiwonka. I was his Finals opponent, and played him earlier in the tourney. He had his cards sleeved and had put a slip of paper on the backside with his name on it. I suppose if he was going to do something like that he should have done it on the other side, but has Obiwonka said, I never felt like he was cheating. His behavior certainly did not lend to it.

Now, stop the witch hunt please.

I concur with Obiwonka. I was his Finals opponent, and played him earlier in the tourney. He had his cards sleeved and had put a slip of paper on the backside with his name on it. I suppose if he was going to do something like that he should have done it on the other side, but has Obiwonka said, I never felt like he was cheating. His behavior certainly did not lend to it.

Now, stop the witch hunt please.

As one of the players on the right side of one of those matches, I feel the need to speak up. They were not stickers, but slips of paper inserted into the card sleeves. They happened to shift around when the cards were moved around. As his opponent, I never felt as though he was cheating in any way, and neither should any of you.

Witch hunt aside, you are correct: it is illegal to mark your deck.

Good to hear from you two and I'm glad it was clear to both of you that there was no malicious intent. Loved his list. Miranda is a quiet force and I lost to a similar build last weekend in a store tourney.

But you're both in the wrong calling this a witch hunt. If you actually read the thread, it took how many posts and some prodding for me to put the video up. Exact opposite. I guess I could have just let the topic wither away under a pile of new topics but Klutz and I were having a civil (?) back and forth - and who doesn't like closure? Literally no witch hunt. Editing first post to clarify, as people sometimes only read what's in big, red letters.

But you're both in the wrong calling this a witch hunt.

Fair enough, but when you post video of someone online pointing fingers and saying "look at the illegal thing this guy did", it sort of is regardless of your intent.

In any case, Mike was an extremely awesome guy and opponent and totally deserved that win with that list!

But you're both in the wrong calling this a witch hunt.

Fair enough, but when you post video of someone online pointing fingers and saying "look at the illegal thing this guy did", it sort of is regardless of your intent.

Thanks, Klutz

But you're both in the wrong calling this a witch hunt.

Fair enough, but when you post video of someone online pointing fingers and saying "look at the illegal thing this guy did", it sort of is regardless of your intent.

Thanks, Klutz

Are thespaceinvader and StevenO also Klutz now?

Excuse me for defending someone who did no wrong against Internet accusations from people who weren't there.

There were multiple TO's at this event, and I assure had they or anyone else felt he was somehow cheating, they would've had no trouble talking to about it and I'm sure he would've had no trouble un-sleeving his deck, or whatever solution they had come up with.

So you just feel the need to continue being an ass. Got it.

https://youtu.be/Emdzsz_XvfA

With the further explanation of nature of those "marks" I'd would likely lower any thoughts on intentional rule violations. If the marks are floating that would take some of their marking nature away although if I were to continue to nit-pick I'd look to see that all of the floating bits are the same.

Now if someone wants to say I was on a witch hunt I'm afraid you are very mistaken. All of my statements have been relating to the general idea of marked damage deck and when all I have is someone else's descriptions to work all I can deal in is generalizations.

Now I have had one of those trick deck of cards that IS subtly marked on the back enabling me to know what the next card would be. Placing marks of some kind on the back of the damage cards could produce a similar effect even if everything is in the same place.

But you're both in the wrong calling this a witch hunt.

Fair enough, but when you post video of someone online pointing fingers and saying "look at the illegal thing this guy did", it sort of is regardless of your intent.

Thanks, Klutz

Are thespaceinvader and StevenO also Klutz now?

Excuse me for defending someone who did no wrong against Internet accusations from people who weren't there.

There were multiple TO's at this event, and I assure had they or anyone else felt he was somehow cheating, they would've had no trouble talking to about it and I'm sure he would've had no trouble un-sleeving his deck, or whatever solution they had come up with.

So you just feel the need to continue being an ass. Got it.

Hahaha speaking of people who continue to be an ass...

Final thoughts for for you, ObaWonka: a) Your opponent violated the rules and b) the videos don't come with two white-knights to defend his (benign) cheating - but we thank your for your insight.

Also, Klutz is Klutz

Never change, Ohio...

At the end of the day, I had a great game against a great opponent, and you have... your bitterness and the desire to be an omnipresent and omnipotent hardline TO?

-shrug- Bye.

Well this thread was a roller coaster...

It started off as some weird stay-at-home-mom-on-Facebook level passive-aggressiveness. Then we got the actual video evidence of what OP was referring to. Then 2 witnesses offered testimony. And it all ended in a massive flame war.

In any case, marking your damage deck in any way that is visible when the card is face down is strictly illegal. In this case there was likely nothing malicious about it, but if it becomes an accepted practice you'll quickly have some people abuse it and then others become suspicious of everyone doing it. If I was a TO at this event, I would've simply asked him to move the slips of paper to the other side of the cards - no harm done.

no harm done.

It does seem like people can get unnecessarily defensive when they're breaking the rules. Just because you are doing something that is illegal doesn't always mean you're intentionally cheating. It may just be a misunderstanding or lack of knowing the rules.

So pointing out that it's illegal to mark your damage deck in anyway isn't really an accusation it's simply pointing out the rules correctly. There is in fact a valid reason to point this out since there's at least one case where people and I'd include the TO's in this, were not following the rules.

One of the TO's should of noticed this and should've said something. That doesn't mean the player would of been sanctioned in some way, just that a possible issue was resolved before it became one. I mean if someone wanted to, they could've called the TO over at some point in the match and demanded that the other guy be DQ'ed and forfeit the game... Even if they may not have a great argument to make, it is still going to add a great deal of unneeded drama to the event.

I haven't really read this thread all that carefully, but I didn't see anyone making accusations of cheating, just people pointing out that what was happening is against the rules.

As long as you don't stack a damage deck (ie change its composition by say replacing all of the direct hits!) and it gets properly shuffled it is relatively hard to abuse knowing what the next damage card would be. The only time I could see such a thing coming into play is if you have something that will cause you to take a face-up card as part of some cost which would make the random nature of that as part of the cost; I can't think of anything at the moment but maybe there are currently cards that do that.

As long as you don't stack a damage deck (ie change its composition by say replacing all of the direct hits!) and it gets properly shuffled it is relatively hard to abuse knowing what the next damage card would be. The only time I could see such a thing coming into play is if you have something that will cause you to take a face-up card as part of some cost which would make the random nature of that as part of the cost; I can't think of anything at the moment but maybe there are currently cards that do that.

As long as you don't stack a damage deck (ie change its composition by say replacing all of the direct hits!) and it gets properly shuffled it is relatively hard to abuse knowing what the next damage card would be. The only time I could see such a thing coming into play is if you have something that will cause you to take a face-up card as part of some cost which would make the random nature of that as part of the cost; I can't think of anything at the moment but maybe there are currently cards that do that.

Earlier this week I was flying a TIE Bomber which was setting up for a fully modified Cluster Missiles attack on an Aggressor. The Aggressor attacked first, and rolled one [kaboom]. I rolled [blank], [eye] and decided to save my Focus token for my shot, knowing it might be a while before I got another one. What I didn't know was the the crit was going to be "Blinded Pilot". Had I known, I would have chosen differently.

I guess that is a good example of why the DD should be unkowns. Of course when it comes to damage I think most people would spend the Focus to avoid the face-up card but I guess that knowing the card could easily change the math on that.