I haven't seen anyone mentioning the opponent in this scenario.

If the TO allows the squad sheet to be changed and play on, does the opponent then not have the right to say," But that's not his listed squad that he himself filled out and turned in. He's playing with an illegal squad." I'm not saying the opponent would have, but the TO has to take that into account as well. The arguments for the DQ player could have been just as loud for the opponent's situation if the ruling had gone the other way. This entire thread could be "He cheated and the TO allowed it!!" The TO is between a rock and a hard place in this situation.

Now I'm not advocating for or against anyone, just saying there's more that the TO has to consider than what has been brought up so far.

I haven't seen anyone mentioning the opponent in this scenario.

If the TO allows the squad sheet to be changed and play on, does the opponent then not have the right to say," But that's not his listed squad that he himself filled out and turned in. He's playing with an illegal squad." I'm not saying the opponent would have, but the TO has to take that into account as well. The arguments for the DQ player could have been just as loud for the opponent's situation if the ruling had gone the other way. The TO is between a rock and a hard place in this situation.

Now I'm not advocating for or against anyone, just saying there's more that the TO has to consider than what has been brought up so far.

But the TO has FFG rules to back him up in this case.

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".

It doesn't say to punish possible cheating, but to investigate it. And as PiebeatsCake mentioned, these weren't even the procedures that were followed on the floor at the time. At the very least, the call didn't need to be made within minutes of discovering the mistake.

Edit: We're probably going in circles now, and there certainly is a need to have consequences for cheating, but in my experience, heavy-handedness is more damaging than benefit of the doubt, especially when it seems like a honest mistake without evidence, including even the word of a single player. Decisions like this can't be taken back, but allowing the game to play out -- and even letting the player continue in the tournament -- would still have left the door open for consequences after the fact, at worst.

It doesn't say to punish possible cheating, but to investigate it. And as PiebeatsCake mentioned, these weren't even the procedures that were followed on the floor at the time. At the very least, the call didn't need to be made within minutes of discovering the mistake.

You are omitting the X-Wing Tournament Regulations and Fundamental Event Document sections that describe the TO/Marshall the final authority on the rules and their application. You can't cherry pick a single section of the regulations to bolster your case and ignore the rest. The rules are extremely clear, the TO makes the final call.

Marshal

An event may have any number of marshals, including none. A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament. A marshal also determines if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy is, referring any recommendations for disqualification to the organizer. When a marshal is not actively performing his or her duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

You are omitting the X-Wing Tournament Regulations and Fundamental Event Document sections that describe the TO/Marshall the final authority on the rules and their application. You can't cherry pick a single section of the regulations to bolster your case and ignore the rest. The rules are extremely clear, the TO makes the final call.

MarshalAn event may have any number of marshals, including none. A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament. A marshal also determines if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy is, referring any recommendations for disqualification to the organizer. When a marshal is not actively performing his or her duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

The reason TOs have full fiat is because the rules doc can't possibly prepare for every situation, human judgement will be needed. Agreed? Human judgement wasn't needed here because we have a situation outlined in the rules.

Edited to reword. I do not mean to imply that this TO crosses huge lines regularly, and it might have looked that way.

It doesn't say to punish possible cheating, but to investigate it. And as PiebeatsCake mentioned, these weren't even the procedures that were followed on the floor at the time. At the very least, the call didn't need to be made within minutes of discovering the mistake.

You are omitting the X-Wing Tournament Regulations and Fundamental Event Document sections that describe the TO/Marshall the final authority on the rules and their application. You can't cherry pick a single section of the regulations to bolster your case and ignore the rest. The rules are extremely clear, the TO makes the final call.

Marshal

An event may have any number of marshals, including none. A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament. A marshal also determines if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy is, referring any recommendations for disqualification to the organizer. When a marshal is not actively performing his or her duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

Oops! My mistake for "cherry picking" the exact relevant section of the tournament rules that applies to the situation. (By that logic we can't debate any calls made by the TO).

It doesn't say to punish possible cheating, but to investigate it. And as PiebeatsCake mentioned, these weren't even the procedures that were followed on the floor at the time. At the very least, the call didn't need to be made within minutes of discovering the mistake.

You are omitting the X-Wing Tournament Regulations and Fundamental Event Document sections that describe the TO/Marshall the final authority on the rules and their application. You can't cherry pick a single section of the regulations to bolster your case and ignore the rest. The rules are extremely clear, the TO makes the final call.

Marshal

An event may have any number of marshals, including none. A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament. A marshal also determines if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy is, referring any recommendations for disqualification to the organizer. When a marshal is not actively performing his or her duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

I do not believe that the discussion is about whether the Marshal has the authority to enforce incorrect calls, but rather whether the call itself was correct.

For the day in question, the Marshal has absolute and complete authority. If the Voice of God comes down from heaven itself and disagrees with the Marshal, the Marshal wins. I have played in an event where the TO violated the Core Rulebook by not allowing several of my ships to execute their maneuvers. As a player you have to abide by that decision, but it doesn't make the decision correct.

Ultimately onsite during the event you SHOULD NOT argue a TO call. That's clearly un-sportsman like conduct and if I were running an event would be a immediate DQ. There is no room for it at all.

The rules call for the Leader to "consider investigating for possible cheating". From that point forward it's a judgement call. That judgement was made. There are no hard and fast regulations or rules to guide any decision. You can dislike the judgement, but you can't honestly say it was against the rules documentation in any way.

Ultimately onsite during the event you SHOULD NOT argue a TO call. That's clearly un-sportsman like conduct and if I were running an event would be a immediate DQ. There is no room for it at all.The rules call for the Leader to "consider investigating for possible cheating". From that point forward it's a judgement call. That judgement was made. There are no hard and fast regulations or rules to guide any decision. You can dislike the judgement, but you can't honestly say it was against the rules documentation in any way.

I'm honestly saying it was against the rules document. Sorry but I think we have to agree to disagree here. I see your point and don't think it's correct.

Ultimately onsite during the event you SHOULD NOT argue a TO call. That's clearly un-sportsman like conduct and if I were running an event would be a immediate DQ. There is no room for it at all.

The rules call for the Leader to "consider investigating for possible cheating". From that point forward it's a judgement call. That judgement was made. There are no hard and fast regulations or rules to guide any decision. You can dislike the judgement, but you can't honestly say it was against the rules documentation in any way.

At Worlds it as announced during the set of the first game, that if you call a TO over and its a call you did not agree with, you could call for another judge or Marshal to make a ruling. So while they want the TOs to have control, they also know they might make a bad call.

I feel like you guys are operating under the assumption that the TO was watching all the twitch matches more intently than any of the seven other games going on. A staff member noticed the chat, who then informed the TO of the issue. At that point, the only 'investigation' that can be done is check the squad sheet and make a judgement call.

I feel like you guys are operating under the assumption that the TO was watching all the twitch matches more intently than any of the seven other games going on. A staff member noticed the chat, who then informed the TO of the issue. At that point, the only 'investigation' that can be done is check the squad sheet and make a judgement call.

Was it a staff member or was it a person that was a TO as well? as if they fall under the Spectator role as the rules have outlined, they are to not interfere with a game in progress.

A spectator is any individual at a tournament not actively engaging in another role. Spectators must not disturb an ongoing game, and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during their games.

just my 3 cents

Ultimately onsite during the event you SHOULD NOT argue a TO call. That's clearly un-sportsman like conduct and if I were running an event would be a immediate DQ. There is no room for it at all.

The rules call for the Leader to "consider investigating for possible cheating". From that point forward it's a judgement call. That judgement was made. There are no hard and fast regulations or rules to guide any decision. You can dislike the judgement, but you can't honestly say it was against the rules documentation in any way.

At Worlds it as announced during the set of the first game, that if you call a TO over and its a call you did not agree with, you could call for another judge or Marshal to make a ruling. So while they want the TOs to have control, they also know they might make a bad call.

I don't think you understand the hierarchy of the Judging. The first/lowest level is zero or more Judges. Then the single Marshall, then the ultimate position of a single TO. Depending on the size of the event, the TO may be the Marshall also. There could be zero Judges, or many. There could be a separate TO and Marshall.

If you call THE TO over, their call is going to be final. If you call A Judge over, their call would be subject to review by THE Marshall and/or TO. There are not going to be multiple TOs. It sounds like you are conflating the term "TO" and "Judge".

I'm fairly certain that mentioning something amiss to the TO away from a match is in no way assisting a player, just like calling someone with a 103 point list isn't.

I get that it's probably tough to be a TO, and that sometimes you will have to make hard calls.... I just think that maybe one of the things people are getting super hung up about is that it maybe should've taken more than 5 minutes to make that hard call instead of what appears to be a from the hip response of "I don't really know, so **** it"

I get that it's probably tough to be a TO, and that sometimes you will have to make hard calls.... I just think that maybe one of the things people are getting super hung up about is that it maybe should've taken more than 5 minutes to make that hard call instead of what appears to be a from the hip response of "I don't really know, so **** it"

I TO an event every week that brings in 20-30 players on average, so i know thats it tough to make calls quickly and the pressure can be difficult... but thats what i signed up for...

I know the speed at which the decision was reached is what bothered me about it (and i was there). Its Top 16 at a regional, pause the game and reference the rules. Doling out a round loss at that point is affectivity a DQ and there are no take backs from that.

I'm fairly certain that mentioning something amiss to the TO away from a match is in no way assisting a player, just like calling someone with a 103 point list isn't.

Also, just spoke with the gent (I am also an employee) and he was a Marshall for the event.

I think Wisconsin just wanted some whine with their cheese.

I think Wisconsin just wanted some whine with their cheese.

Found the Minnesotan

I think Wisconsin just wanted some whine with their cheese.

Found the Minnesotan

To be fair, we also like wine with our cheese.

I think Wisconsin just wanted some whine with their cheese.

Found the Minnesotan

To be fair, we also like wine with our cheese.

I like cheese with my cheese.....

depends on the type of pie and the type of cake

I like my cheese with some taxidermy:

(this used to be on 35 south of 94, between Hudson and River Falls)

I like my cheese with some taxidermy:

(this used to be on 35 south of 94, between Hudson and River Falls)

Ah good. I can drop of my deer for taxidermy and snack on some cheese before heading off to the Tree Sale.

**** like this is ******* killing X-Wing.

Two years ago, even a year ago, something like this wouldn't have even been a blip on anyone's radar. It would've been, "Oh, I see. Yeah, just add Mangler Cannon to the list."

I just can't wait for the first X-Wing controversy about big heads and shrunken testicles. Anything to win some acrylic. At the rate the feel of competition is changing in the game, I'm figuring this will be just before Wave 11.

**** like this is ******* killing X-Wing.

Two years ago, even a year ago, something like this wouldn't have even been a blip on anyone's radar. It would've been, "Oh, I see. Yeah, just add Mangler Cannon to the list."

I just can't wait for the first X-Wing controversy about big heads and shrunken testicles. Anything to win some acrylic. At the rate the feel of competition is changing in the game, I'm figuring this will be just before Wave 11.

It's not about the acrylic or any of the prizes. It's about the work, effort, and skill it took someone to get to the Top 16 cut, only to get a DQ for a controversial call that many believe (and with good reason and facts to back it up) was wrong.