There should never be an argument in the first place. The person who disagrees should state what they think, and if the other person still disagrees then the judge should be called by the people playing the game. That is what the judge is there for. A spectator should never say anything unless they catch someone cheating. When I say cheating I mean something like moving a dial to a different maneuver when the other player is not looking, or moving a rock etc. Even then the spectator should not interrupt the game and should tell a judge.

If it's a rules question then a spectator should never get involved. It should be up to the players in the match.

For me I wouldn't get involved in that at all.

What would be harder for me is hearing a player say a card/ability works a certain way, it being wrong, but the other player not knowing. I know that is up to both players knowledge, but in a tourney setting you'd be letting someone (maybe) win based on false info or downright cheating.

THEN I'd feel the need to either say something to them or to get a judge to view the match for a bit and see if they caught the mistakes.

I think the problem we all face is the moral obligation to mention something when we witness something that we deem to be incorrect. The rules specifically state that as a third party, we are not to interfere with a match. Now there's no grey area between these two positions, but I know there's a lot of folks here that would break that rule if they believed it was for the right reason. But they're still breaking a tournament rule, and as such could be subject to a penalty from the judge or organiser. Even though that penalty may be unlikely, that possibility still exists. And when a judge has not been asked to arbitrate, he is just another spectator.

It's a very hard position to be in sometimes. Do you follow the rules, or do you correct something when you're technically not supposed to?

And FFG haven't made the job any easier with some of the cards currently released that can be interpreted in different ways. There's more than a few that are not just black and white.

I think there are two possible solutions here:

1. You can take the job very seriously and enforce those rules, not intervening until asked and penalising third parties if need be.
2. Or you can remember we are just pushing plastic space ships around a table and do your very best to ensure a fair and enjoyable tournament for all. Which may result in some of the more pedantic rules getting bent a little.

Do you follow the rules, or do you correct something when you're technically not supposed to?

I think you have to follow the rules, because while you may believe you're correct you may not be. You have no authority or agency to correct what you perceive as a mistake. So the most you can do is find someone who does have that ability and point out what you believe to be the mistake to them. Then they'll correct or not depending on the situation as they see it.

And when a judge has not been asked to arbitrate, he is just another spectator.

That is simply untrue as I read the rules. The judge doesn't need someone to ask him/her to interject into the game, they always have that authority.

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 problem is it doesn't actually state when a marshal or judge isn't actively performing his or her duties. So the whole statement really is pointless.

If a Marshal walks by a table and sees blatant cheating are they supposed to just walk by because one one asked them to intervene? What if they see someone playing PtL wrong? What if they see someone roll too many dice?

I just don't accept that a judge/marshal is barred from doing their job because they aren't asked.

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 think this is for cases in tournaments where there are either judges taking turns from round to round or when fewer judges are needed as more people are cut in further rounds. If there's only 8 folks left from a 200+ person event, do they really need as many judges to cover those few people. At that point whoever is actively judging the event makes it apparent that they are doing so and the others say that they're just there for the fun of it.

The overriding message in the tournament rules is that the TO or judge has the final say in any matter even when the FAQ is concerned. I doubt FFG would give judges that authority then tie their hands as to when they can utilize it.

Spectator going off to get a Judge (whether asked to or not) is fine.

Any judge should have the common sense to take what the observer has said with a pinch of salt and male their own determination about whether or not to intervene.

No player who is playing fairly and in accordance with the rules should have any reason to begrudge the presence of a judge at their table (no matter how he came to be there), and moreover should not have a problem if the judge makes the determination that he should get involved.

What I think we can all agree on is that spectators should not interfere in the game themselves. If you see something wrong and you absolutely can't abide it; go get a judge. The judge will decide if intervention is needed.

If you're no t playing in that game or judging that tournament then you should be seen and not heard.

Well, case closed. The last tournament rules document clearly state that judge spectator can intervene and a regular spectator can call a judge if he see something wrong other the missing trigger.

Well, case closed. The last tournament rules document clearly state that judge spectator can intervene and a regular spectator can call a judge if he see something wrong other the missing trigger.

I certainly welcome that addition. I've been taught that if you see something wrong happening you should say something about it but some people seem to think that unless it is directly affecting you then you should just "mind your own ******* business and get *** **** lost."

In kind of a way, it make me feel they really read the forum, maybe if this chat did not happen here, they would have not fixed it...

In kind of a way, it make me feel they really read the forum, maybe if this chat did not happen here, they would have not fixed it...

There was a long discussion a while back about rolling too many or too few dice and how to remedy it. Only a few weeks later a new FAQ was published with a new heading for Rolling Dice. So, I'm pretty sure they read the forums to see what players are discussing and what improvements may be made. I think in some indirect way, we all can have some kind of influence of this game's design and evolution.

I'm scared, too.

Well, case closed.

Thanks for updating us all. I personally like the change to the rules.

Ah, common sense prevails!

Nice change.