Arguing with a judge is unsportsmanlike if you are doing it improperly. Also he was more or less getting thrown out of the tournament, so you might as well go all in at that point.

It is ok to say, "I do not believe that is accurate, would it be ok to look it up?" or "Could you show me in the tournament regulations where it says that?" or "Could you give me 5 minutes to look this up so we can talk more directly about this?"

What I am not saying is that the TO made the most appropriate call. What I am saying is that 1) It doesn't seem like the player cared, 2) it doesnt seem like the player advocated for himself in any way and 3) its the internet machine right now ripping on a judge who is a great person who made a call and frankly it wasn't great but it actually doesn't involve you in any way.

It was the stream that noticed the build irregularity. If they weren't streaming nobody would have known. Since they were and this caused it, I believe those of us that were on the stream have a right to talk about it so it isn't exactly "the internet". If you don't care enough to know the current rules then you shouldn't accept the position of TO for a regional.

The player cared but since he was young he probably didn't want to get into an argument with the "locals" since he was also from out of town.

You have to go back in the thread here and also realize that this same TO told a local player whose list was not correct, that it was ok and no problem. Why was it ok for the local but not for this kid?

I understand the local store wanting to support the local players but this kind of favouritism is uncalled for at a regional that is going to attract people from farther away.

We are not judging the TO as a person, we are saying he made the wrong call and there is proof that this is so. They refuse to admit they were in the wrong.

Nothing can obviously be done at this point but they should take accountability for their actions and at least apologize to the player in question for their error.

Arguing with a judge is unsportsmanlike if you are doing it improperly. Also he was more or less getting thrown out of the tournament, so you might as well go all in at that point.

It is ok to say, "I do not believe that is accurate, would it be ok to look it up?" or "Could you show me in the tournament regulations where it says that?" or "Could you give me 5 minutes to look this up so we can talk more directly about this?"

What I am not saying is that the TO made the most appropriate call. What I am saying is that 1) It doesn't seem like the player cared, 2) it doesnt seem like the player advocated for himself in any way and 3) its the internet machine right now ripping on a judge who is a great person who made a call and frankly it wasn't great but it actually doesn't involve you in any way.

It was the stream that noticed the build irregularity. If they weren't streaming nobody would have known. Since they were and this caused it, I believe those of us that were on the stream have a right to talk about it so it isn't exactly "the internet". If you don't care enough to know the current rules then you shouldn't accept the position of TO for a regional.

The player cared but since he was young he probably didn't want to get into an argument with the "locals" since he was also from out of town.

You have to go back in the thread here and also realize that this same TO told a local player whose list was not correct, that it was ok and no problem. Why was it ok for the local but not for this kid?

I understand the local store wanting to support the local players but this kind of favouritism is uncalled for at a regional that is going to attract people from farther away.

We are not judging the TO as a person, we are saying he made the wrong call and there is proof that this is so. They refuse to admit they were in the wrong.

Nothing can obviously be done at this point but they should take accountability for their actions and at least apologize to the player in question for their error.

In reality, what probably would have happened if the guy went up and said, "oh crap, I didnt put my Mangler on my squad sheet!" Two things could have occurred, 1) they find the sheet and fix it BEFORE the tournament starts, 2) they say dont worry about it. Either way, at the start of the cut when they say, 'your sheet doesnt match your squad" he has some defense. I dont think this was a local vs out of towner thing, I think it was a before tournament vs after tournament thing.

Now is this something that we should all learn from in the future? Absolutely.

Arguing with a judge is unsportsmanlike if you are doing it improperly. Also he was more or less getting thrown out of the tournament, so you might as well go all in at that point.

It is ok to say, "I do not believe that is accurate, would it be ok to look it up?" or "Could you show me in the tournament regulations where it says that?" or "Could you give me 5 minutes to look this up so we can talk more directly about this?"

What I am not saying is that the TO made the most appropriate call. What I am saying is that 1) It doesn't seem like the player cared, 2) it doesnt seem like the player advocated for himself in any way and 3) its the internet machine right now ripping on a judge who is a great person who made a call and frankly it wasn't great but it actually doesn't involve you in any way.

#3 is worth discussing in the first place so that players are more likely do do exactly what you suggested in the future and the reason I posted the rule. I think this would probably have been quiet today if the judge and had tried to retroactively justify his decision in a way that was very different from original statements.

I think an honest mistake that was made in good faith and played fairly should result in neither a loss nor DQ, and the FFG Tournament rules allow for this. I think the TO made a bad and incorrect call against this player.

I think my concern is that there is no way to prove this. Was this an honest mistake? Lets assume you were just told about this problem. It's day 2, after the cut, so there is no way to prove one way or the other. He wasn't on a stream for every game so there's no video evidence. Most of his opponents are not around and have gone home. The store is packed with people and crazy loud. You have to be judge, jury, and executioner to determine if there is a potential advantage from what he left off. The fact is that leaving your list with 4 points of wiggle room COULD give a player the room to cheat.

If this were forgetting to write Royal Guard TIE on Soontir, but still having the two modifications listed. That's a non issue. The card being there or not is zero advantage, it's a pure semantics card. A 4 point card missing could turn into anything (not knowing the list this is speculation). Do I think this player was cheating? Eh, prolly not, but I'm admittedly a bit of a push over.

So there's a mistake and the potential for an advantage if manipulated. Intentional or not is not able to be proven. That's all you have to go on as a TO. In my opinion, doing nothing would be a mistake. A full disqualification isn't warranted either. So it would come down to "finish out the tournament without the mangler cannon" or "you receive a game loss". That's a hard point to be at as a TO, judge, or marshal. Ryan made his judgement.

It's unfortunate the way it played out, but hopefully this will be a sign for future large tournaments to put a bit more emphasis on list checking early and often.

As a Nationals, North American Championship, and Worlds judge, we had to make some tournament ending calls. Fortunately for me, I had FFG staff as marshals. Even in their infinite X-Wing knowledge, I still think we got some calls wrong and they may have, and in one case did, result in a player being knocked out of making the cut.

Agree with his call or not, I stand by the fact that he had to make a call and the tournament had to continue. Hopefully through discussion we can improve future events and have an idea of how to handle this if it ever comes up again. No need to crucify a volunteer for making a call you disagree with. It's ok to disagree, just keep it civil.

The good news: players will be extra sure their squad sheets are accurate now. I suggest bringing two, one to turn in, and an exact copy to show opponent.

I don't think he's being crucified for the wrong ruling. He's being asked to admit it was the wrong call and offer apologies. I don't hate him, but I think he should attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Again, the rules call for an investigation of possible cheating. The fact that he could have been using the incorrect list to his advantage should not cause people to believe that he did, but rather they should suspect cheating and investigate it. This is outlined in the rules. They assigned a ruling as if he did have and use an unfair advantage in his games, of which there was no actual evidence reported.

I don't think he's being crucified for the wrong ruling. He's being asked to admit it was the wrong call and offer apologies. I don't hate him, but I think he should attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Again, the rules call for an investigation of possible cheating. The fact that he could have been using the incorrect list to his advantage should not cause people to believe that he did, but rather they should suspect cheating and investigate it. This is outlined in the rules. They assigned a ruling as if he did have and use an unfair advantage in his games, of which there was no actual evidence reported.

I don't agree. It was a judgement call and saying the judge should have known all the information in such a short amount of time is not realistic. If the judge felt that is was an unfair advantage, and made the call, that is really the end of the story. A player made the mistake the initiated the removal and a decision was rendered but continually calling out the judge is inappropriate based on facts that may have not been present or having perfect knowledge in the time needed to make the call.

I don't think he's being crucified for the wrong ruling. He's being asked to admit it was the wrong call and offer apologies. I don't hate him, but I think he should attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Again, the rules call for an investigation of possible cheating. The fact that he could have been using the incorrect list to his advantage should not cause people to believe that he did, but rather they should suspect cheating and investigate it. This is outlined in the rules. They assigned a ruling as if he did have and use an unfair advantage in his games, of which there was no actual evidence reported.

Eh, you're never going to get that. As a TO, I don't feel obligated or even care to make some public statement. You can be conforted to know that there is a TO only facebook group and there is a significant conversation going on there on the topic. The controversy is not being ignored.

I don't think anyone legitimately thought he was cheating. Had that been suspected or even some evidence in that direction, he would have received a full disqualification and likely a report to FFG with a recommendation for the permaban list. Some are calling the game loss equivalent to a DQ, but I find it very different. Sure, his tournament run ended, but he still got noted as top 16, he got prizes for getting to that point, and there are no future repercussions. If I may use a bad analogy, it's almost like getting Involuntary Manslaughter over First Degree Murder.

Every person I have talked to who has actually been a TO, Marshall or Judge for a premier level event feels he made the right call.

Players have to be responsible for their squad sheet accuracy.

All players (who are aware) will learn from this. The TO community is already discussing how to make sure errors like this are caught before the first game so they can be fixed without any player penalty.

At tournaments here in Ottawa we have learned that the first thing during round 1 is each player swaps lists and damage decks. The lists get viewed over for correctness and damage decks get counted and verified. Then we play a tournament.

It saves on hard situations like this.

I was talking to the TO right after Cody was given a game loss. He asked me "what can we do in the future to prevent things like this from happening?"

I suggested he do what the Ottawa tournament did. I suggested that after lists are turned in, they're passed out to the round one pairing to double check. He immediately shot that idea down saying that "it's not possible with only three judges." I'm sure the players don't care if they have to wait an extra 10 minutes so that nobody gets a game loss later on. It would only take 10 minutes to sort the lists and pass them out and the TO didn't even want to consider that idea.

You can see on the stream how long I was talking with him. I show up right after Cody is given the news, I'm in the grey hoodie. I was talking with the dude for 10+ minutes and he was not open to suggestion and not open to the possibility that his judge team made a bad call.

I don't think he's being crucified for the wrong ruling. He's being asked to admit it was the wrong call and offer apologies. I don't hate him, but I think he should attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Again, the rules call for an investigation of possible cheating. The fact that he could have been using the incorrect list to his advantage should not cause people to believe that he did, but rather they should suspect cheating and investigate it. This is outlined in the rules. They assigned a ruling as if he did have and use an unfair advantage in his games, of which there was no actual evidence reported.

I don't agree. It was a judgement call and saying the judge should have known all the information in such a short amount of time is not realistic. If the judge felt that is was an unfair advantage, and made the call, that is really the end of the story. A player made the mistake the initiated the removal and a decision was rendered but continually calling out the judge is inappropriate based on facts that may have not been present or having perfect knowledge in the time needed to make the call.

There was not an urgent need to make the call within a short period. By taking the time to confirm that the rules supported their decision the situation would not have deteriorated.

I'm not sure why people insist this is a judgement call scenario when there are clearly written rules on what to do here that were not followed.

Every person I have talked to who has actually been a TO, Marshall or Judge for a premier level event feels he made the right call.

Players have to be responsible for their squad sheet accuracy.

All players (who are aware) will learn from this. The TO community is already discussing how to make sure errors like this are caught before the first game so they can be fixed without any player penalty.

Have these TOs read the new rules? This was a formerly correct ruling that has since been changed.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

I don't think he's being crucified for the wrong ruling. He's being asked to admit it was the wrong call and offer apologies. I don't hate him, but I think he should attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Again, the rules call for an investigation of possible cheating. The fact that he could have been using the incorrect list to his advantage should not cause people to believe that he did, but rather they should suspect cheating and investigate it. This is outlined in the rules. They assigned a ruling as if he did have and use an unfair advantage in his games, of which there was no actual evidence reported.

I don't agree. It was a judgement call and saying the judge should have known all the information in such a short amount of time is not realistic. If the judge felt that is was an unfair advantage, and made the call, that is really the end of the story. A player made the mistake the initiated the removal and a decision was rendered but continually calling out the judge is inappropriate based on facts that may have not been present or having perfect knowledge in the time needed to make the call.

There was not an urgent need to make the call within a short period. By taking the time to confirm that the rules supported their decision the situation would not have deteriorated.

I'm not sure why people insist this is a judgement call scenario when there are clearly written rules on what to do here that were not followed.

Every person I have talked to who has actually been a TO, Marshall or Judge for a premier level event feels he made the right call.

Players have to be responsible for their squad sheet accuracy.

All players (who are aware) will learn from this. The TO community is already discussing how to make sure errors like this are caught before the first game so they can be fixed without any player penalty.

Have these TOs read the new rules? This was a formerly correct ruling that has since been changed.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

But, your not just talking about how the rules should be interpreted. You are asking that the person to publicly apologize and someone else is suggesting the judge was 'afraid' of the other player.

I think he should just apologize to the person in question honestly. The reason I'm still posting is because people are replying to me, I'm not going to keep complaining until something happens or anything.

I don't think he's being crucified for the wrong ruling. He's being asked to admit it was the wrong call and offer apologies. I don't hate him, but I think he should attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Again, the rules call for an investigation of possible cheating. The fact that he could have been using the incorrect list to his advantage should not cause people to believe that he did, but rather they should suspect cheating and investigate it. This is outlined in the rules. They assigned a ruling as if he did have and use an unfair advantage in his games, of which there was no actual evidence reported.

I don't agree. It was a judgement call and saying the judge should have known all the information in such a short amount of time is not realistic. If the judge felt that is was an unfair advantage, and made the call, that is really the end of the story. A player made the mistake the initiated the removal and a decision was rendered but continually calling out the judge is inappropriate based on facts that may have not been present or having perfect knowledge in the time needed to make the call.

There was not an urgent need to make the call within a short period. By taking the time to confirm that the rules supported their decision the situation would not have deteriorated.

I'm not sure why people insist this is a judgement call scenario when there are clearly written rules on what to do here that were not followed.

Every person I have talked to who has actually been a TO, Marshall or Judge for a premier level event feels he made the right call.

Players have to be responsible for their squad sheet accuracy.

All players (who are aware) will learn from this. The TO community is already discussing how to make sure errors like this are caught before the first game so they can be fixed without any player penalty.

Have these TOs read the new rules? This was a formerly correct ruling that has since been changed.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

But, your not just talking about how the rules should be interpreted. You are asking that the person to publicly apologize and someone else is suggesting the judge was 'afraid' of the other player.

I think its getting out of hand now.

I think this is the whole point:

1 - squad sheet missed the mangler cannon on bossk but included it in total points - 100.

2 - mangler cannon upgrade card was on the table and used for all the games we saw on twitch with this player

3 - rules state that squad sheet should be updated as there was no advantage based on 1 and 2 above.

Claiming you had fewer points would have been cheating but this wasn't the case here.

More time should have been taken to come to a decision considering the seriousness of the result of the action.

At the end of the day this is just a game but considering how much some of the FFG bling sells for it is starting to get pretty serious. 3 green and 3 red dice selling for hundreds of US dollars is not "casual" anymore. That is quite a few upgrades worth of money.

My closest regional is 1.5 hours away. Next closest in another country(US) is 2 hours and then next closest is also in the US and is about 6 hours from me. Not everyone has a bunch close to them that they can just "play another day" to get the bling. These kinds of mistakes now have a monetary value to them.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

One note, I'm not sure who it was making comments on the twitch chat, but that was not Ryan the marshal. Perhaps one of the judges.

Anyways, about the rule. I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. There's the section on if it would create a significant advantage then cheating needs to be investigated. This situation created the potential for a significant advantage in some cases, so further evaluation was needed. No clear cut answer was attainable since all the evidence wasn't available. So a ruling had to be applied. I think there were multiple correct ruling that could have been applied. The game loss was on the harsher end of what I would have considered, but still valid.

I think the further you get into an event, the more grey this rule gets. I'm sure in future events, TOs will be trying to make sure simple mistakes are caught at round 1 rather than the cut. We did this at worlds, we had everyone's opponent check lists, damage decks, templates, range rulers, and dice. The more people you have, the harder these things are to get done.

I think he should just apologize to the person in question honestly. The reason I'm still posting is because people are replying to me, I'm not going to keep complaining until something happens or anything.

Well, that is really not your business. In professional sports, officials gets things wrong all the time. Players in college football can be ejected for targeting despite a pure reading of the rules says it is not. Judgement calls sometimes get things wrong and is simply part of the game. Move on especially when the tournament was described as well run.

I think this is the whole point:

1 - squad sheet missed the mangler cannon on bossk but included it in total points - 100.

2 - mangler cannon upgrade card was on the table and used for all the games we saw on twitch with this player

3 - rules state that squad sheet should be updated as there was no advantage based on 1 and 2 above.

Claiming you had fewer points would have been cheating but this wasn't the case here.

More time should have been taken to come to a decision considering the seriousness of the result of the action.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions using evidence that is not available. I'm not saying the assumptions are wrong, but as a TO there's a sliding scale. Do you assume the worst in people or the best in people? The assumption that there was no advantage is not provable or disprovable. The grey area had to be dealt with.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

One note, I'm not sure who it was making comments on the twitch chat, but that was not Ryan the marshal. Perhaps one of the judges.

Anyways, about the rule. I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. There's the section on if it would create a significant advantage then cheating needs to be investigated. This situation created the potential for a significant advantage in some cases, so further evaluation was needed. No clear cut answer was attainable since all the evidence wasn't available. So a ruling had to be applied. I think there were multiple correct ruling that could have been applied. The game loss was on the harsher end of what I would have considered, but still valid.

I think the further you get into an event, the more grey this rule gets. I'm sure in future events, TOs will be trying to make sure simple mistakes are caught at round 1 rather than the cut. We did this at worlds, we had everyone's opponent check lists, damage decks, templates, range rulers, and dice. The more people you have, the harder these things are to get done.

I do that even in some of the smaller tournaments as it keeps everyone honest and allows me to concentrate on getting everything else setup and ready to start on time.

I just feel bad for the young guy who was on the bad end of this. I can only attest to what I saw on twitch and what staff posted in chat.

I think this is the whole point:

1 - squad sheet missed the mangler cannon on bossk but included it in total points - 100.

2 - mangler cannon upgrade card was on the table and used for all the games we saw on twitch with this player

3 - rules state that squad sheet should be updated as there was no advantage based on 1 and 2 above.

Claiming you had fewer points would have been cheating but this wasn't the case here.

More time should have been taken to come to a decision considering the seriousness of the result of the action.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions using evidence that is not available. I'm not saying the assumptions are wrong, but as a TO there's a sliding scale. Do you assume the worst in people or the best in people? The assumption that there was no advantage is not provable or disprovable. The grey area had to be dealt with.

He didn't apparently misrepresent his squad during his multiple games on twitch. Like I said I'm only commenting on what I saw and what was said in chat by the account that was streaming which was the store staff.

None of this is going to change anything for that situation but hopefully it will help to clarify things in the future. Maybe FFG needs to make it more clear. Individual players need to make sure they submit proper squad lists. TO's need to make sure they are "aware" of the current rules.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

One note, I'm not sure who it was making comments on the twitch chat, but that was not Ryan the marshal. Perhaps one of the judges.

Anyways, about the rule. I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. There's the section on if it would create a significant advantage then cheating needs to be investigated. This situation created the potential for a significant advantage in some cases, so further evaluation was needed. No clear cut answer was attainable since all the evidence wasn't available. So a ruling had to be applied. I think there were multiple correct ruling that could have been applied. The game loss was on the harsher end of what I would have considered, but still valid.

I think the further you get into an event, the more grey this rule gets. I'm sure in future events, TOs will be trying to make sure simple mistakes are caught at round 1 rather than the cut. We did this at worlds, we had everyone's opponent check lists, damage decks, templates, range rulers, and dice. The more people you have, the harder these things are to get done.

The person in the twitch channel was answering questions and it certainly seemed like the person with final word on the decision based on what they said. Additionally, it matched up very closely with what people on site said (which is what led to the question being asked and the reply given). But, whatever at this point.

Hopefully people are taking something from it because I:

• really don't see the "grey" area here (rules are clear and seem to require proof of cheating, not the possibility of),
• don't believe the decision needed to be made immediately (the game could at least have been finished),
• and as someone that followed the story and details pretty closely, though wasn't there, believe that it's clear the story and justification has changed (and I'll add that people that were on site have said the same).

I think he should just apologize to the person in question honestly. The reason I'm still posting is because people are replying to me, I'm not going to keep complaining until something happens or anything.

Well, that is really not your business. In professional sports, officials gets things wrong all the time. Players in college football can be ejected for targeting despite a pure reading of the rules says it is not. Judgement calls sometimes get things wrong and is simply part of the game. Move on especially when the tournament was described as well run.

I don't think sports analogies are going to be perfectly applicable.

And as I said, I'm not holding out for it. I just want to say that I'm not bringing up concerns for no purpose, as obviously it is too late to change the ruling. I am still confident that the rule was not applied correctly, and that's mostly what the conversation has turned to at this point.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

One note, I'm not sure who it was making comments on the twitch chat, but that was not Ryan the marshal. Perhaps one of the judges.

Anyways, about the rule. I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. There's the section on if it would create a significant advantage then cheating needs to be investigated. This situation created the potential for a significant advantage in some cases, so further evaluation was needed. No clear cut answer was attainable since all the evidence wasn't available. So a ruling had to be applied. I think there were multiple correct ruling that could have been applied. The game loss was on the harsher end of what I would have considered, but still valid.

I think the further you get into an event, the more grey this rule gets. I'm sure in future events, TOs will be trying to make sure simple mistakes are caught at round 1 rather than the cut. We did this at worlds, we had everyone's opponent check lists, damage decks, templates, range rulers, and dice. The more people you have, the harder these things are to get done.

The person in the twitch channel was answering questions and it certainly seemed like the person with final word on the decision based on what they said. Additionally, it matched up very closely with what people on site said (which is what led to the question being asked and the reply given). But, whatever at this point.

Hopefully people are taking something from it because I:

• really don't see the "grey" area here (rules are clear and seem to require proof of cheating, not the possibility of),
• don't believe the decision needed to be made immediately (the game could at least have been finished),
• and as someone that followed the story and details pretty closely, though wasn't there, believe that it's clear the story and justification has changed (and I'll add that people that were on site have said the same).

AlexW, I find this to be a grey area for exactly the opposite reason you state. The rules say "possible cheating".

If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing appropriate information, he or she should find that player immediately and update the squad list based on the cards the player is using. If this would result in a significant and potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider investigating for possible cheating.

I don't think I've ever had to make an unsportsmanlike or cheating call based on pure fact. It was always one man's word vs another.

In case people haven't been reading the whole thread, please keep in mind that the TOs said themselves over twitch chat that they searched for 5 minutes attempting to find the correct course of action before giving up and going on what they thought it should be.

I really understand that this happens. This alone is not why I'm fried. It's the fact that they've been shown a relevent section of the rules that states clear cut what to do here, and still would not make any attempt to right the situation. And now they've changed their story. That is why this is being talked about.

One note, I'm not sure who it was making comments on the twitch chat, but that was not Ryan the marshal. Perhaps one of the judges.

Anyways, about the rule. I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. There's the section on if it would create a significant advantage then cheating needs to be investigated. This situation created the potential for a significant advantage in some cases, so further evaluation was needed. No clear cut answer was attainable since all the evidence wasn't available. So a ruling had to be applied. I think there were multiple correct ruling that could have been applied. The game loss was on the harsher end of what I would have considered, but still valid.

I think the further you get into an event, the more grey this rule gets. I'm sure in future events, TOs will be trying to make sure simple mistakes are caught at round 1 rather than the cut. We did this at worlds, we had everyone's opponent check lists, damage decks, templates, range rulers, and dice. The more people you have, the harder these things are to get done.

The person in the twitch channel was answering questions and it certainly seemed like the person with final word on the decision based on what they said. Additionally, it matched up very closely with what people on site said (which is what led to the question being asked and the reply given). But, whatever at this point.

Hopefully people are taking something from it because I:

• really don't see the "grey" area here (rules are clear and seem to require proof of cheating, not the possibility of),
• don't believe the decision needed to be made immediately (the game could at least have been finished),
• and as someone that followed the story and details pretty closely, though wasn't there, believe that it's clear the story and justification has changed (and I'll add that people that were on site have said the same).

AlexW, I find this to be a grey area for exactly the opposite reason you state. The rules say "possible cheating".

If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing appropriate information, he or she should find that player immediately and update the squad list based on the cards the player is using. If this would result in a significant and potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider investigating for possible cheating.

I don't think I've ever had to make an unsportsmanlike or cheating call based on pure fact. It was always one man's word vs another.

If there was a single report of the player claiming to be at 96 points you would be entirely correct. However, it's no man's word vs one man's.

I agree that the schrodingers mangler cannon is a potential advantage that merits investigation for cheating. But all the conversation about "this is how he could have utilized swapping his list between games" only indicates the first part of the ruling. That there is a potential advantage to the omission, which should lead you to consider investigating cheating.

Investigating cheating when it's day 2 and the opponents are all gone is clearly not going to be very productive. It seems we can only tell that he did not cheat during the steamed game. There are 5 games that could be in question, but we don't have all the opponents.

So the investigation understandably ends here.

Evidence he cheated in any of 6 games: none reported

Evidence he did not cheat: His own word (yes, a cheater would lie, but this is still better than nothing.) Two games on camera played clean.

I think it is very clear that the appropriate action is modifying the sheet and issuing a warning.

If there was a single report of the player claiming to be at 96 points you would be entirely correct. However, it's no man's word vs one man's.

I agree that the schrodingers mangler cannon is a potential advantage that merits investigation for cheating. But all the conversation about "this is how he could have utilized swapping his list between games" only indicates the first part of the ruling. That there is a potential advantage to the omission, which should lead you to consider investigating cheating.

Investigating cheating when it's day 2 and the opponents are all gone is clearly not going to be very productive. It seems we can only tell that he did not cheat during the steamed game. There are 5 games that could be in question, but we don't have all the opponents.

So the investigation understandably ends here.

Evidence he cheated in any of 6 games: none reported

Evidence he did not cheat: His own word (yes, a cheater would lie, but this is still better than nothing.) Two games on camera played clean.

I think it is very clear that the appropriate action is modifying the sheet and issuing a warning.

"Schrodinger's mangler cannon" if there's one good thing to come out of this thread, it's that phrase!

I agree that fixing the sheet and issuing a warning is a possible way to resolve the issue, but I think it is way on the lenient side of things. My problem with warnings are that they do not deter players. A person who considers cheating will be much more likely to do it if they know they can get off with a warning as long as their story is good. Like "forget" to put BTLA4 title on a stress bot Y-Wing then bust out the card as it's convenient. Who cares if I get caught, I'll just get a warning. I've got the internet behind me. Oh, they're putting me on the stream. I better make sure I have the card up there this time. As the parent of a 6 and 4 year old, I see them play these games all day long if you give them an inch.

Imagine the worst for a second (NOTE: I don't think this person was a cheater) if he had been, he just got away with it till that point. "Well, I got my warning, now just to fly right till the end of the event. At least I got away with it for 6 rounds." Like I said, not the case here, just playing devil's advocate there.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's way overboard. If FFG thinks a game loss is within the ballpark of acceptable rulings in the situation where there is no evidence to indicate cheating, why would the rules have stopped at correcting the sheet?

I feel like the ruling came from a "guilty until proven innocent" line of thought.

Keep in mind that we were told initially that the ruling was made based off of previous rules. We are now discussing how it could fit with the new rules. Considering that this line of thought was not actually what was applied, I think it's fair to call it a mistake.