I had come up at regionals I was in disagreement about a how Finn works. Well anyways a third party chimes in and then when I disagree he says he will get the judge and he did. Is that kosher I am still a bit bitter about that. Should I be?

It wasn't his game so he probably shouldn't have interferred. It's a standing rule at our gaming club that if you're not playing the game, you keep your mouth shut.

What was the disagreement regarding Finn?

Standard practice, especially at a competitive event, is to get a judge if you see someone making a rules error (but you stay the hell out of the way for misplays & missed opportunities). But the person in question should have just gone for the judge immediately and had him interrupt the game, rather than interrupt himself.

It wasn't his game so he probably shouldn't have interferred. It's a standing rule at our gaming club that if you're not playing the game, you keep your mouth shut.

What was the disagreement regarding Finn?

Finn adds a blank result, which can then be rerolled if you have the capability. And it can add that result if you have rolled "0" defence dice during the attack.

But I can understand how you would have felt "ganged up on". Like I said, this sort of thing just doesn't happen at our club because of our golden rule, but I have seen outside interference at big events that have created quite ugly confrontations. We're a pretty easy going and friendly bunch until a third party chimes in with unwarranted input. Invariably they get told to shut the hell up and walk away. If they still don't take the hint, they get shown the door. It's the one thing we take very seriously, and that's purely because it always results in a heated two versus one argument, that just didn't need to happen.

As far as I'm concerned, no third party has the authority to call for a judge. They might suggest one of the players call the judge over, but I feel it's pretty damned rude that he was the one that decided to go and get the judge.

As far as I'm concerned, no third party has the authority to call for a judge. They might suggest one of the players call the judge over, but I feel it's pretty damned rude that he was the one that decided to go and get the judge.

The idea is that, if the spectator is wrong and there isn't actually an issue, the judge can tell him as much and the game continues uninterrupted with no one the wiser. If the spectator is right and there is an issue, the judge can step in and immediately rectify the situation without the players feeling like someone "unauthorised" (for lack of a better word) is interfering.

As far as I'm concerned, no third party has the authority to call for a judge. They might suggest one of the players call the judge over, but I feel it's pretty damned rude that he was the one that decided to go and get the judge.

The idea is that, if the spectator is wrong and there isn't actually an issue, the judge can tell him as much and the game continues uninterrupted with no one the wiser. If the spectator is right and there is an issue, the judge can step in and immediately rectify the situation without the players feeling like someone "unauthorised" (for lack of a better word) is interfering.

The thing here is that the spectator got involved in the disagreement, which I think is entirely out of order. It's one thing to voice an opinion, but it's quite another to get involved in a debate and then get the judge over to sort it out, especially when you're not actually playing that game.

It wasn't his game so he probably shouldn't have interferred. It's a standing rule at our gaming club that if you're not playing the game, you keep your mouth shut.

What was the disagreement regarding Finn?

I was wrong it was about him adding a green to no agility but the third party getting the judge felt like I was being ganged up on. This was a regional that guy should of known better to interfere and the judge should of basically told it wasn't his game and they would call one if they needed one.

A third party who sees players arguing over rules should call a judge every time .

I would doubt that there's a single player that didn't have a misunderstanding about a rule or card at some stage during their time playing X-wing. And to say that a third party that sees an argument should call a judge every time , is just plain ludicrous. What if they were arguing over where to go for lunch after the game? Would that warrant a judge's intervention?

Spectators should just spectate. They should NEVER get involved in a discussion, disagreement or argument between players, because they're not playing the game. I would consider that to be outside interference. Most players can usually decide the correct course of action, and if they can't agree then they should be the ones to call the judge, not a spectating third party. You don't see sports referees or umpires taking counsel from spectators before intervening, do you?

Yup. It's explicit in the tournament rules that spectators shouldn't interfere with the game. Even the commentators on the livestream don't, when they're the freaking designer of the game. It's tough though, of course, to see something being done wrong and not point it out - but there might be a reason for it.

If there's some major mistake going on, or obvious cheating, as a spectator I might be inclined to fetch a judge to observe, but I wouldn't stick my nose in to the game itself.

If you're just having a rules disagreement with your opponent, call a TO. That's what they're for. The spectators shouldn't do it for you, but they shouldn't have to.

yep bad etiquette by spectator.

If you're just having a rules disagreement with your opponent, call a TO. That's what they're for. The spectators shouldn't do it for you, but they shouldn't have to.

If I were spectating and I saw two people having a disagreement about the rules and it was fairly clear they weren't going to come to an agreement, I'd consider going and calling the TO over for the sake of saving everyone some time.

I wouldn't interject my opinion into the matter unless asked. I think that was the real issue here, the spectator gave an opinion when they weren't asked.

Ideally the players should come to an agreement, and if they can't they should call for a TO. But I don't think there's any harm if someone see's that they're unlikely to come to an agreement saving both players some time by calling the TO over for them. Worse case is the TO shows up and the players let the TO know that they sorted it out.

You don't see sports referees or umpires taking counsel from spectators before intervening, do you?

No, but there is judge at every game. There is no judge at every game of X-Wing. No spectator should interfere directly by telling the rulling. But, yes as a spectator, I would call a judge if I see arguing about a rule, more so if the person having it right, being on the loosing side.

It is way to easy to bully a new or someone knowing less the rule, so if I see something wrong, I'll call the judge. And sorry, but if you end up wrong, and you are pissed off that someone external call the judge on you, then you are the bully in my book. If you are wrong about a rule in a tournement, you should always be happy that a judge intervene and show the proper ruling.

If your just having a reasonable rules discussion then no, but if your arguing then yes because neither player is acting like a grown up and clearly you need an adult to settle things.

It's a game it should never elevate to an argument.

It wasn't his game so he probably shouldn't have interferred. It's a standing rule at our gaming club that if you're not playing the game, you keep your mouth shut.

What was the disagreement regarding Finn?

I was wrong it was about him adding a green to no agility but the third party getting the judge felt like I was being ganged up on. This was a regional that guy should of known better to interfere and the judge should of basically told it wasn't his game and they would call one if they needed one.

How about you should have known better about how your ships work? Or knowing when you should call a judge?

A third party who sees players arguing over rules should call a judge every time .

If your just having a reasonable rules discussion then no, but if your arguing then yes because neither player is acting like a grown up and clearly you need an adult to settle things.

It's a game it should never elevate to an argument.

It's unfortunate that the OP felt ganged up on at the Regional, and I'm glad that we aren't doing that here.

I would doubt that there's a single player that didn't have a misunderstanding about a rule or card at some stage during their time playing X-wing. And to say that a third party that sees an argument should call a judge every time , is just plain ludicrous. What if they were arguing over where to go for lunch after the game? Would that warrant a judge's intervention?

Straw man: Defeated.

And seriously, as a third party I will always call a judge for a simple reason. If they reach an agreement and they end up wrong, then they carry this in other game, and then the two of them continue to play with the wrong rule. This make the whole tournement based on possible invalide outcome. Without counting the fact that I may end up facing one of them and having to then call the judge and make them realise that they were wrong all along.

So to everyone telling me that it is none of my business if you play wrong during a tournement and I should not try to have a judge correct you. Sorry, but it is, I want everyone at a tournement to play by the rules.

I will never tell them directly, but I will always call a judge if I see something wrong.

So just to clarify, you are upset that a third party got involved? Or called the judge?

Did calling the judge over cause you to lose an argument or did it help your situation?

Personally, I can see how it's rude and annoying for some.

The judge being called over wouldn't really bother me, but over shoulder judging and coaching is very upsetting.

I'm sorry you had to deal with that.

In the tournament rules:

Judge: A judges responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes... When a judge is not actively performing judge duties he or she is a spectator.

Spectator: Spectators must not disturb an ongoing game, and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during their games.


The point is, unless the members of a table call for a judge OR the TO/Judge/Marshall decide they need to step in, in all cases, no one should be talking about the game at the table except for the players. If there is an egregious violation, then you as a spectator have the right to go to a judge, but under no circumstances should you ever clarify rules for any players, simply say, "Call a judge."

If there is an egregious violation, then you as a spectator have the right to go to a judge, but under no circumstances should you ever clarify rules for any players, simply say, "Call a judge."

I think that's what most of us are saying. Although I'd go a step farther and say that if it's clear the players can't resolve the dispute and the judge isn't busy with something else. There's no harm in a 3rd party saving everyone some time and calling over the judge.

Because again worse case is the judge will get there and the players will have resolved it themselves. Although speaking as a judge I think it's up to the judge to also make sure people are playing by the rules, so if I saw a game where the players were playing a rule incorrectly or came to an agreement that was not in line with the rules, I'd correct it.

To make it very clear, I would only do that if I were a Judge for the tournament and not just watching the game.

I think that's what most of us are saying.

In fact, no, Parravon is strongly suggesting that a third party should not even call a judge. And this is the disagreement right now... Most people say we should call a judge but not interfere.

I mean, arguably the judge isn't even allowed to interfere unless the players ask him to.

The idea that a judge shouldn't intervene without player request is dumb AF though. It's not exactly difficult to cheat in a way your opponent doesn't notice in this game, or to fast talk your opponent into an incorrect rules interpretation that benefits you and/or penalises them (intentionally or otherwise). Judges should be able to step in in those situations.

I mean, arguably the judge isn't even allowed to interfere unless the players ask him to.

The idea that a judge shouldn't intervene without player request is dumb AF though. It's not exactly difficult to cheat in a way your opponent doesn't notice in this game, or to fast talk your opponent into an incorrect rules interpretation that benefits you and/or penalises them (intentionally or otherwise). Judges should be able to step in in those situations.

This ruling specifically stops the players from coming to any conclusion on their own without a judge. Say you are playing a game and the opposing player looks at YOUR dial. You come to the conclusion that dials are set so it doesnt matter. Technically the judge cannot interfere in this instance and tell you what you have to do. This situation is why this rule was put into place.

Technically the judge cannot interfere in this instance and tell you what you have to do.

Nothing can stop a judge from interjecting into a game if they feel they have a reason to do so. Now there's many cases where they maybe shouldn't. But the fact that both players agreed that there's no fowl doesn't mean there isn't one or the Judge can't interject.

If a Judge can only get involved when someone asks then there's no way for them to police cheating if the player doesn't notice it. Just because both players agree to something doesn't actually change the fact that it's cheating.

The problem with the rules is this...

When a marshal/judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

Exactly when is a judge not actively performing their duties? When they're at lunch, or when they are 'just watching a game'? Perhaps it's when they don't need as many judges?

But in the later case, if they don't need as many judges and so some becomes spectators are they even judges any longer? If a judge sees someone cheating and they're on lunch is it really reasonable to them to say "Well since I'm lunch I guess I have to let that person get away with it"

Honestly I don't get the point for that text because it's either unclear or unnecessary.

Technically the judge cannot interfere in this instance and tell you what you have to do.

Nothing can stop a judge from interjecting into a game if they feel they have a reason to do so. Now there's many cases where they maybe shouldn't. But the fact that both players agreed that there's no fowl doesn't mean there isn't one or the Judge can't interject.

If a Judge can only get involved when someone asks then there's no way for them to police cheating if the player doesn't notice it. Just because both players agree to something doesn't actually change the fact that it's cheating.

Unfortunately, this has not been enforced in the highest levels of Xwing. Tables that can come to an agreement themselves have not been forced by a judge to play it a specific way. On specific rules interactions I can see your point, but for most cases I have seen at large tournaments (gencon, origins, etc) if the players come to an adequate solution, the judge doesn't get involved and will quit arbitration for a ruling.