5 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

Yep.

I've addressed that idea numerous times.

You pick up their dial intentionally, and your opponent gets to change one of your dials. It was worth it because you got to see where an opponent's important ship was going.

Except you're still not gaining a benefit.

You get to see where one of your opponent's ships is going, but at the same time not only does your opponent also now get to know where one of your ships is going, your ship is now going in the direction that is most beneficial for your opponent.

You wanted to cheat and now you know my ship is going to do a 2-bank instead of a 2-hard turn. Fine. I'll send the ship that you had lined up to intercept and shoot my ship in a direction that faces it's firing arc away from my ship, maybe even putting it in prime position to be shot while my ship(s) are safe from it. If I'm lucky the maneuver I choose for your ship will also stress it so it can't take any actions, thus leaving it defenseless. If it's a turret ship, I'll just pick a red maneuver to keep it from getting actions. Thanks for that advantage.
Or better yet, I'll send it on an asteroid if I can. Not only will your ship not be shooting or getting actions this round, but there's a chance it will be taking damage too. Cool, that works for me too. And if one of your ships is close to the board edge, I'll send it off, getting me both points for a destroyed ship and denying you a shot at my ships.

You say that you can look at the dial and know where your opponent's ship is going on a critical turn. But on that same critical turn you've now given your opponent the opportunity to get the advantage by knowing where your ship is going and putting it in the best position for them.

1 hour ago, macmastermind said:

It's all just so militant. I guess that's what personally turns me off.

Like, if I was up against someone who intentionally looked at my dial, trying to game the system, I would just literally feel sorry for that person and be happy for him to have his win.

Turbo, you're not wrong about the schematics of your suggestion - it would be a deterrent and in some cases it would be an appropriate penalty, but at the level where considerations like this exist, we're so far outside of the margins of the spirit of the game that there's really no longer any point to playing. Either one party needs the win so bad that they're willing to be a dirtbag, or the other party needs justice so bad they're willing to throw a newcomer who makes an honest mistake under the bus while saying, 'sorry bro, them's the rules'...

I pity both of them - and am just not interested in playing either one.

But that's me - and this is the internet, so... Peace!

I sympathize with your feeling here. I wouldn't insist on any penalty if playing at home or even in my local stores on X-Wing night, where I'm extremely generous about mistakes (I always remind my opponents of missed opportunities, allow them to do things that they forgot during the proper time window, etc.). But we're specifically talking about tournament play. Some folks travel long distances and incur considerable expenses to play in tournaments, so there's more to consider than just 'if he needs a win that badly then he can have it'. So I think that, firstly, precautions should be taken to prevent the mistakes from happening in the first place - dials should be allowed to be placed on cards, should be marked, etc., and, secondly, there should be an automatic penalty for revealing hidden information that can never be exploited to one's advantage.

4 minutes ago, Helias de Nappo said:

I sympathize with your feeling here. I wouldn't insist on any penalty if playing at home or even in my local stores on X-Wing night, where I'm extremely generous about mistakes (I always remind my opponents of missed opportunities, allow them to do things that they forgot during the proper time window, etc.). But we're specifically talking about tournament play. Some folks travel long distances and incur considerable expenses to play in tournaments, so there's more to consider than just 'if he needs a win that badly then he can have it'. So I think that, firstly, precautions should be taken to prevent the mistakes from happening in the first place - dials should be allowed to be placed on cards, should be marked, etc., and, secondly, there should be an automatic penalty for revealing hidden information that can never be exploited to one's advantage.

But if more people consider dial peaking due to the long drive, need to win, etc., why are we not seeing more cases of this happening? This game has been going on for 5 years, and this risk has been there from the beginning. The game hasn't come crashing down because of this, why is it needed now?

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

And he will, even without your draconian rule.

Which is the whole problem with the OP's suggestion, It's completely and utterly unnecessary in some cases, and in others draconian and punishing the innocent in others.

If someone is clearly cheating, they will be dealt with by the Judge appropriately. If it's an honest mistake then the Judge can use his or her judgement to address the situation and come up with a equitable fix. It it's questionable then the Judge will again use his or her judgement to deal with it.

The zero tolerance nature of the OP's suggestion is what I think most of us have an issue with. I don't have a problem with someone being handed a game loss for blatant cheating, but he doesn't want it just for blatant cheating he wants it for every case, regardless of intent, and that is simply a horrible idea, especially since this is not a huge problem and if carried out would be massively exploitable.

Let's be completely honest here, what the OP is asking for is akin to a witch hunt, in which someone is found guilty and "executed" (because in a tournament a game loss like this is going to knock you out of the top 8-16) based solely on the accusation of cheating.

1 hour ago, Helias de Nappo said:

secondly, there should be an automatic penalty for revealing hidden information that can never be exploited to one's advantage.

There should never, ever be an automatic penalty for anything. Because that means all I have to do is accuse someone and they get penalized. No need for proof or allowing the judge to do his job, just summary punishment... This is always a bad idea.

3 hours ago, sf1raptor said:

Just the one ship. If you get to change both the accused's dial and your own then you could set up a shot. I really don't see how it would be worth it at that point to cheat. Yes you just saw a dial, but now one of your ships is out of your control with the potential of being out of line to shoot.

Then you can simply out number their ship(s) and do it. You get to put one of my 8 TIE Fighters or one of my 4 B-Wings in a sub-optimal spot, I get to see where your 74 point Kanan Ghost is going.

12 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Then you can simply out number their ship(s) and do it. You get to put one of my 8 TIE Fighters or one of my 4 B-Wings in a sub-optimal spot, I get to see where your 74 point Kanan Ghost is going.

If you're running 8 ties or 4 bwings you don't care that much about winning the tournament anyway. How about some actual meta list examples?

26 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Then you can simply out number their ship(s) and do it. You get to put one of my 8 TIE Fighters or one of my 4 B-Wings in a sub-optimal spot, I get to see where your 74 point Kanan Ghost is going.

1. If you're running an Imperial list and you pick up a rebel dial (especially if you're running 8 TIE Fighters as you have absolutely no reason to even have your hand near a red dial), your chances of claiming it was an "accident" are going pretty much going to melt away as soon as the judge comes over.

2. If you're running 8 TIE Fighters or 4 B-Wings at a tournament, no amount of dial checking is going to get you placed very well in that tournament. Congrats on cheating for your participation promo card.

3. You're using two list examples that are rare/uncommon at tournaments. The majority of lists have 3-4 ships on average so you're example is an exception, not the norm. Having a dial changed by the opponent is almost always going to be a major disadvantage for the person who looked at the wrong dial.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But if more people consider dial peaking due to the long drive, need to win, etc., why are we not seeing more cases of this happening? This game has been going on for 5 years, and this risk has been there from the beginning. The game hasn't come crashing down because of this, why is it needed now?

Er...I didn't say that more people consider peaking. I was just saying that flying casual and not being really invested in winning, or at least feeling that one would rather just let the cheater have his win if he needs it so badly, is fine for casual games (I share that attitude there), but it isn't a good way of determining tournament rules.

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

There should never, ever be an automatic penalty for anything. Because that means all I have to do is accuse someone and they get penalized. No need for proof or allowing the judge to do his job, just summary punishment... This is always a bad idea.

Nope. I never meant to imply that there be an automatic penalty based merely on an accusation and didn't say it. The automatic penalty would be applied only when the person is certain to have looked at an opponent's dial, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

1 hour ago, VanderLegion said:

If you're running 8 ties or 4 bwings you don't care that much about winning the tournament anyway. How about some actual meta list examples?

Nonsense. The meta changes all the time. The illustration makes its point regardless of whether you think a TIE swarm is a good list at this particular moment.

15 pages later, a couple of people are continuing to prop up a rigid solution to a problem that isn't supported by the majority of people that care enough to comment and that no one thinks is actually a widespread problem.

Just now, Helias de Nappo said:

Nonsense. The meta changes all the time. The illustration makes its point regardless of whether you think a TIE swarm is a good list at this particular moment.

It's not nonsense. Sure, the meta chanes, but I can't think of any meta list right now that isn't hurt by the opponent getting to change one of their dials. And almost guaranteed to be hurt more than they gained from seeing where an opponent had their ship dialed in to go. For one thing, if dials are already set, the most you can do to take advantage of that knowledge is some repositioning. It's not like you get to see their dial then set all of your own dials to take perfect advantage of that knowledge. So you MIGHT be able to block (if they don't fly your blocker somewhere else), but then they might just fly your heavy hitter off into the horizon where it doesn't have a shot.

Look at the example of a tie swarm vs a 74 point ghost. Take the Hera/Ahsoka list as an example. What are you gonna do with your "free" dial look? I can already tell you what hera's doing. She's flying away from your swarm. So you aren't going to block her. You MIGHt be able to reposition to have marginally better arcs or range on where she's going. Then she moves, and gets her boost to reposition after YOU reposition.

You have 4 b-wings? Great, so you might get to barrel roll if it'l help you. Then a quarter of your list is k-turning to face the wrong direction. Or doing a 4s if a k-turn is what you need. Or maybe a red hard turn. Or whatever else hurts it most.

Or maybe you're runing a list with no repositioners. Great, now the best you can get out o fhte knowledge is knowing whether you might be able to get away with a target lock instead of a focus or evade if you aren't getting shot.

As someone who has flown a lot of intel agent, knowing where the opponent is going on a ship *every round* is fantastic. You might be able to block ,or line up shots better, or wahtever. But doing it one time isn't nearly the same thing as being able to do it every turn if you're in range.

And you guys still haven't shown that this is a widespread issue needing such a harsh penalty in the first place.

13 minutes ago, Helias de Nappo said:

Er...I didn't say that more people consider peaking. I was just saying that flying casual and not being really invested in winning, or at least feeling that one would rather just let the cheater have his win if he needs it so badly, is fine for casual games (I share that attitude there), but it isn't a good way of determining tournament rules.

That still doesn't answer the question of why we need the rule now when we haven't needed it before. Again, the game is 5 years old, and this loophole was there from the beginning.

6 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

That still doesn't answer the question of why we need the rule now when we haven't needed it before. Again, the game is 5 years old, and this loophole was there from the beginning.

I think the problem is that some of us have tried to hard for unanimity when it really isn't needed (even though it has been a noble effort).

Interestingly, I think the reaction for a rule that is put in place as harsh as the one suggested in the OP would probably generate a thread 10x as long as this one.

3 minutes ago, AlexW said:

Interestingly, I think the reaction for a rule that is put in place as harsh as the one suggested in the OP would probably generate a thread 10x as long as this one.

Yes, but then there would be a fairly sizable group of people saying, "It's the rule, so there's no point in complaining about it."

At the risk of sounding all "Get off my lawn, whippersnappers," I'm seriously beginning to see attitudes percolate into gaming that weren't there back in the day, when I walked to my D&D sessions uphill, both ways, in the snow. I'm starting to reluctantly draw some sociological conclusions from it, which makes me feel bad. (Both for doing it, and for the conclusions themselves.)

40 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

At the risk of sounding all "Get off my lawn, whippersnappers," I'm seriously beginning to see attitudes percolate into gaming that weren't there back in the day, when I walked to my D&D sessions uphill, both ways, in the snow. I'm starting to reluctantly draw some sociological conclusions from it, which makes me feel bad. (Both for doing it, and for the conclusions themselves.)

I'm interested in what you mean here, specifically - I think I feel the same way. And I'm also getting too old for this ****...

This......still????

So my question I guess is: How often does this really happen?

My bet is that it's comparatively rare. Or was before this (very) lengthy thread brought it to potential exploiters' attention. Sometimes people don't think of ways to cheat until someone suggests it to them..... Just sayin'.....

15 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

I'm interested in what you mean here, specifically - I think I feel the same way. And I'm also getting too old for this ****...

Basically, what I'm talking about is (what seems to me to be) an increasing insistence in gaming that "strictly enforced rules are better than rules that require judgment in enforcement," with no regard to just how bad the strictly enforced rule is. (In other words, the existence of the rule is more important than the fairness of the rule.)

I think it's a mirror of the same thing that seems to be on the rise (again) in Western society. (And that's really all I can say.)

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

That still doesn't answer the question of why we need the rule now when we haven't needed it before. Again, the game is 5 years old, and this loophole was there from the beginning.

I wasn't attempting to answer that question. I was explaining how you were, likely unintentionally, putting words in my mouth.

1 hour ago, Helias de Nappo said:

The automatic penalty would be applied only when the person is certain to have looked at an opponent's dial, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

A one size fits all solution is seldom if ever correct and is never the best. Plus there's no reason to have one, since the Judge can decide what will best address the situation at hand.

There is simply no need for any sort of automatic penalty, especially one that isn't based on intent, because there's a judge at the tournament whose whole job is to make sure situations like this are dealt with fairly. And dealing with it fairly is not something an automatic penalty can not do, since the penalty will be too harsh in at least some cases.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes, but then there would be a fairly sizable group of people saying, "It's the rule, so there's no point in complaining about it."

At the risk of sounding all "Get off my lawn, whippersnappers," I'm seriously beginning to see attitudes percolate into gaming that weren't there back in the day, when I walked to my D&D sessions uphill, both ways, in the snow. I'm starting to reluctantly draw some sociological conclusions from it, which makes me feel bad. (Both for doing it, and for the conclusions themselves.)

I would guess that competitive games have always had more disputes about rules and penalties. I played D&D from the mid 80s to early 90s. There were some disputes over how something should work, but the game was really a cooperative effort at story telling, rather than a competition. Now that bigger companies have bought games and game companies, and decided that in-store gaming and competitive tournaments are the way to sell more stuff, things have changed.

44 minutes ago, Helias de Nappo said:

I wasn't attempting to answer that question. I was explaining how you were, likely unintentionally, putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough, but the lack of answer of that question is a glaring hole in the need for a standardized penalty, much less the OP's original suggestion.

I've accidentally picked up an opponents dial. Actually twice - in the same game LOL. But as soon as I picked it up the 'X-wing' caught my eye before I was able to see the maneuver and I put it right back down as I was not flying X-wings. My opponent asked if I saw his dial and I told him as soon as I noticed the ship type I looked away. And we moved on and continued the game without further ado, though I did make sure my dials were well clear of his after the second time. At a tournament too. Why? Because we are grown men playing with plastic space ships. For fun.

I've likewise done it a couple of times, and had it done to me a couple of times since I began playing (back in 'Nam). In each case, it was, "Did you see it? No? Cool, play on." If either of us had seen the actual maneuver, I can't imagine it would have been anything more than mildly more complex to resolve to our mutual satisfaction.

But, gee whiz, what if them bastards was lyin' to me?! Or worse, what if I were lyin' to them?! Oh, the humanity.