23 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

If a Mindlink list is stressed, and you see a white maneuver on one of the dials, 90% of the time another ship in the list is doing a green to feed the other a focus while it keeps its stress token.

What if the victim's ship is already in the ideal board position and allowing him to move it wouldn't benefit him? If a turret player looks at an enemy dial improperly, does it really matter if his opponent gets to place his ship behind his Fat Han? Not every ship has Autothrusters or Outmaneuver.

Yes, it really can matter if you place your ship behind a Fat Han. You might now be denying that ship a range 1 shot, or denying Finn activating, or have a chance to go after another ship.

And with your Mindlink example. Since the victim can readjust all their dials if they want, or leave them the same and change the dial on the ship they can now move to wherever they want on the table, is knowing the maneuver of a ship that might now not exist in the spot where it was or be doing the same move matter that much?

12 minutes ago, NH Gunsmith said:

Yes, it really can matter if you place your ship behind a Fat Han. You might now be denying that ship a range 1 shot, or denying Finn activating, or have a chance to go after another ship.

And with your Mindlink example. Since the victim can readjust all their dials if they want, or leave them the same and change the dial on the ship they can now move to wherever they want on the table, is knowing the maneuver of a ship that might now not exist in the spot where it was or be doing the same move matter that much?

You've seen what your opponent thinks is his optimal maneuver. There may be no viable alternative to the maneuver he selected, so him getting to change it means nothing. There may be no benefit to repositioning his ship either, as would happen often against turrets.

Not every ship has position or arc dependant abilities or attacks. Getting a freebie chance to move a T-65 behind a fat Han instead of in front of it means nothing, meanwhile you've either ****** with your opponent's plans because he has to change them, or get access to hidden information you shouldn't be allowed to see because your opponent kept them the same.

On 16.4.2017 at 4:34 AM, Pimpbacca said:

I did this accidently once in a regional. I was so taken aback that I'd done it, I was blank for a bit. I offered to not take actions on that ship (PtL Dash mind you), which my opponent accepted. To be DQ'd staight off the bat for a mistake like that would have been pretty gut wrenching.

Happen to and against me too. It just happens, BUT mind you, if you know that it is a straight DQ, you would be a lot more careful and a lot less sloppy with your dials. So a game loss sounds like an acceptable result for premier events. Acceptable does not mean desireable though,. I personally enjoy the relaxed and forgiving atmosphere we have even at regionals, nationals and even worlds. That is imho worth more than letting away a cheater with one offense, because those cheaters are still incredible rare. If this starts to become an issue, there is an easy solution for it, but I don't see the need to be more strict about it right now.

26 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

I have a bad habit...

Not just one.

2 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

I am still dumbfounded by how much resistance I'm getting for my suggestion. For 6 pages with every response I've been staring wide eyed, blinking, with my mouth agape.

You are either dumb, dense beyond mortal ken or trolling.

Either way its a waste trying to discuss the issue further with you.

8 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

The idea that Magic has the judging infrastructure and X-Wing does not and that competitive play doesn't even count is ridiculous.

An extra page in the tournament regulations or FAQ with some example situations does not require "having enough judging infrastructure".

If you're colorblind or playing a mirror match, then dials can/should be allowed on cards. If you're not willing to show up to a local store night because you might get a game loss for cheating, intentionally or not, I don't know what to say to you.

If you're going to hate competitive play because it's competitive and won't tolerate cheating, then maybe you should nut up.

In all your suggestions you have never once come up with a way to actually police this. You can devise any punishment system you like, but it still needs to be policed. In a 40+ player tournament there may only be a few judges. Those judges cannot be at all places at the same time. They will almost always arrive to the game after an accusation that someone illegally looked at a dial is made. There is NO WAY for a judge to actually know what happened. Did the offender fully look at the dial? Did he merely pick up the dial and put it back down before he looked? Did he just move the dial away from one ship and did his opponent just think he looked at the dial but didn't? It all just becomes a giant mess of he said she said. How exactly can a judge fairly deal with this? He cannot. All you are asking for is to create a harsh rule set that will never be able to be applied correctly.

3 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

I am still dumbfounded by how much resistance I'm getting for my suggestion. For 6 pages with every response I've been staring wide eyed, blinking, with my mouth agape.

It all comes down to benefit versus cost. The benefit suggested is cutting down on cheating, and the cost is innocent people being thrown out for a simple mistake. For some, the cost already outweighs the benefit, but there is more to it.

First, we add in the possibility that the new rule could be used for cheating as well. A player of low moral fiber sees an absent minded opponent and leaves his/her dials where the opponent might pick them up, then enacting the rule for an easy win. This does require careful consideration of targets and sparing use, but it is an exploit. Thus, the cost part of the equation goes up.

Second, we add in a sentiment I've been getting that there aren't many instances of someone actively trying to peak at other dials. I've never encountered it before, nor have I heard of such behavior from other players in some of the game stores I go to in other cities. If it is not a wide spread problem, then the amount of times an actual cheater will be caught by this rule will be the minority. Thus, the benefit part of the equation goes down.

Thirdly, we add in the concept that when someone is called out unjustly for a simple mistake, they will begin to harbor negative feelings for the game. This zero tolerance way of play will drive people away, losing FFG customers and revenue. thus, the cost part of the equation goes up.

in the end, we get too much cost for too little benefit. Your suggestion presents more problems than it fixes. While I understand the want for clear rules and protection from harmful practices, the purpose solution is too extreme. If these many people are telling you it is too extreme, maybe a reconsidering of your position is in order?

If I'm prepared to cheat by looking at their dial for a small edge why am I not prepared to say they looked at my dials in order to get awarded a game win?

My personal issue here is that @Turbo Toker constantly states he wants clear defined rules so they can be followed to stop cheating...and then pretty much goes out and implies he would cheat to win. In my opinion if you care so much about the rules, you follow their example and don't attempt to 'leverage' the rules in your favor.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

If I'm prepared to cheat by looking at their dial for a small edge why am I not prepared to say they looked at my dials in order to get awarded a game win?

Not to mention that if someone was going to cheat, they wouldn't do something like this just once. They'd be doing a number of things over the course of the game which forms a pattern.

The problem I have with the OP is that it's really a case of zero tolerance with the only punishment being effectively removed from the event, due to what can quite simply be a honest mistake. It is also something that can be extensively abused with no real way to police it.

5 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I've worked in Organised Play for several companies and it's almost always a subdivision of Marketing.

Organised Play exists to provide a reason for people to buy ships. The End.

I get this. It's about selling toys. But I still think that the integrity of the tournaments needs to be preserved, even for that purpose. I quit Magic (I know - I keep talking about Magic!) altogether because the banned card list for Modern was so unreasonable. I never bought another card from Wizards of the Coast because of what they did to the format that I wanted to play. (That's not a tournament integrity issue, but I'm just saying that decisions about organized competitive play can result in folks losing interest - important if you're trying to sell toys.)

2 hours ago, Rinehart said:

In all your suggestions you have never once come up with a way to actually police this. You can devise any punishment system you like, but it still needs to be policed. In a 40+ player tournament there may only be a few judges. Those judges cannot be at all places at the same time. They will almost always arrive to the game after an accusation that someone illegally looked at a dial is made. There is NO WAY for a judge to actually know what happened. Did the offender fully look at the dial? Did he merely pick up the dial and put it back down before he looked? Did he just move the dial away from one ship and did his opponent just think he looked at the dial but didn't? It all just becomes a giant mess of he said she said. How exactly can a judge fairly deal with this? He cannot. All you are asking for is to create a harsh rule set that will never be able to be applied correctly.

It seems to me that you could say the same about any form of cheating, but it isn't a good reason not to have the rule. The judge would have to make a decision based on whatever evidence he had - witnesses from neighboring tables or what-have-you.

1 minute ago, Helias de Nappo said:

The judge would have to make a decision based on whatever evidence he had - witnesses from neighboring tables or what-have-you.

Which is how things already work. The Judge has to make a decision based on the evidence he has, and can already hand someone a loss in the case of cheating. Or they can use their discretion to address the situation as they see fit. This is IMO and I feel safe in saying the opinion of most other people better then the zero tolerance, one penlity answer the OP wants.

6 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

I am still dumbfounded by how much resistance I'm getting for my suggestion. For 6 pages with every response I've been staring wide eyed, blinking, with my mouth agape.

This should tell you just how different your perspective is than that of the current X-wing competitive scene. So, if you're not comfortable with that, you probably need to adjust your expectations for competitive play in Xwing and not the other way around.

FFG, and for the most part, players playing the game, aren't crying for more harsh punishments of actions that *could* be identified as cheating because most people recognize that it's a much more enjoyable competitive scene (and more able to thrive) if the consequences aren't draconian. Note that that idea isn't mutually exclusive with people wanting more clear floor rules, which is something people do want so that consequences aren't different based on the TO.

On ‎04‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 11:03 AM, Helias de Nappo said:

What's with all of the ad hominem?

What's with it? The OP has been called 'dumb' and a cheater. If you think that the suggestion that this infraction should result in a game loss is too extreme, you've been invited to propose an alternative solution. I've seen some good alternative proposals, though I'm not sure I'd be completely satisfied with any one of them. I'd rather see more effort put into developing those than into insulting the OP.

3 hours ago, SabineKey said:

It all comes down to benefit versus cost. The benefit suggested is cutting down on cheating, and the cost is innocent people being thrown out for a simple mistake. For some, the cost already outweighs the benefit, but there is more to it.

First, we add in the possibility that the new rule could be used for cheating as well. A player of low moral fiber sees an absent minded opponent and leaves his/her dials where the opponent might pick them up, then enacting the rule for an easy win. This does require careful consideration of targets and sparing use, but it is an exploit. Thus, the cost part of the equation goes up.

Second, we add in a sentiment I've been getting that there aren't many instances of someone actively trying to peak at other dials. I've never encountered it before, nor have I heard of such behavior from other players in some of the game stores I go to in other cities. If it is not a wide spread problem, then the amount of times an actual cheater will be caught by this rule will be the minority. Thus, the benefit part of the equation goes down.

Thirdly, we add in the concept that when someone is called out unjustly for a simple mistake, they will begin to harbor negative feelings for the game. This zero tolerance way of play will drive people away, losing FFG customers and revenue. thus, the cost part of the equation goes up.

in the end, we get too much cost for too little benefit. Your suggestion presents more problems than it fixes. While I understand the want for clear rules and protection from harmful practices, the purpose solution is too extreme. If these many people are telling you it is too extreme, maybe a reconsidering of your position is in order?

I agree with all of this. But on an amusing note, the whole time I was reading this I kept hearing:

So clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of me...

So clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of you...

5 minutes ago, Bullox said:

I agree with all of this. But on an amusing note, the whole time I was reading this I kept hearing:

So clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of me...

So clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of you...

lol

Anytime I can inadvertently remind someone of the Princess Bride, it is a good day!

7 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I've worked in Organised Play for several companies and it's almost always a subdivision of Marketing.

Organised Play exists to provide a reason for people to buy ships. The End.

But the reason people buy ships is because it's a fun game, the miniatures look good, etc. Adding "The End" doesn't make it "The End".

17 minutes ago, Koing907 said:

But the reason people buy ships is because it's a fun game, the miniatures look good, etc. Adding "The End" doesn't make it "The End".

I was offering a fact not an opinion.

17 minutes ago, Koing907 said:

But the reason people buy ships is because it's a fun game, the miniatures look good, etc. Adding "The End" doesn't make it "The End".

But Stay on the Leader is correct in this case. The main point for OP is to get people to buy models, they don't do it for the sake of having events. Because FFG doesn't make any money off of events, they make money selling models.

8 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

I am still dumbfounded by how much resistance I'm getting for my suggestion. For 6 pages with every response I've been staring wide eyed, blinking, with my mouth agape.

Maneuver selection remaining hidden is sacred. Violating that should have an actual punishment, not some meaningless warning or some poorly thought out "punishment" that's worth it in order to look at an opponent's dial on a crucial turn.

When the vast majority of people disagree with you on something like this, its probably not everyone else that's wrong.

8 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

This is the issue. You have to have a punishment for it that would override the benefit of looking at an opponent's dial.

If something short of a game loss would accomplish this, I'm all for that. It just cannot be something like, "Your opponent gets to change one of your dials in response" or, "nothing happens except a warning the first time" because then the benefits of doing it would outweigh the downsides.

Most of us disagree that you gain nearly as much benefit from seeing your opponents dial as you seem to think. Especiallywhen they then have the option of changing said dial if they desire.

7 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

You deny any surprise factor to be had from maneuvers if your opponent gets to look at them first. Maybe that was the optimal maneuver and your opponent was not aware it was.

He sees it, gets the benefit of knowing about it, and then you either have to stick with the optimal maneuver, or change it to something sh*tty.

Looking at one ship's dial also gives clues to what the rest of your opponent's ships are doing, in case of formation flying or Attanni Mindlink. Or there could be a situation where a ship's dial is improperly revealed to be a 3 hard turn into an area in front of another ship friendly to it, which would imply that the other ship will avoid bumping into it.

If a Mindlink list is stressed, and you see a white maneuver on one of the dials, 90% of the time another ship in the list is doing a green to feed the other a focus while it keeps its stress token.

What if the victim's ship is already in the ideal board position and allowing him to move it wouldn't benefit him? If a turret player looks at an enemy dial improperly, does it really matter if his opponent gets to place his ship behind his Fat Han? Not every ship has Autothrusters or Outmaneuver.

You can usually guess your opponents optimal maneuver, or couple optimal moves. If you already know their optimal move, seeing that they dialed it in doesn't change much if you were planning for it anyway. Especially when they could then choose to do a less optimal option instead to try to throw you off (or keep it anyway, figuring you'll expect them to change). Similarly, if they have 2 optimal choices, knowing which they picked doesn't help after they get to change, because you have the same 50/50 chance of which one they'll end up going with as you did before you saw the dial.

4 hours ago, Rinehart said:

In all your suggestions you have never once come up with a way to actually police this. You can devise any punishment system you like, but it still needs to be policed. In a 40+ player tournament there may only be a few judges. Those judges cannot be at all places at the same time. They will almost always arrive to the game after an accusation that someone illegally looked at a dial is made. There is NO WAY for a judge to actually know what happened. Did the offender fully look at the dial? Did he merely pick up the dial and put it back down before he looked? Did he just move the dial away from one ship and did his opponent just think he looked at the dial but didn't? It all just becomes a giant mess of he said she said. How exactly can a judge fairly deal with this? He cannot. All you are asking for is to create a harsh rule set that will never be able to be applied correctly.

Did your opponent straight up lie and say you looked at a dial when you never even touched it?

edit: nvm, misread.

5 hours ago, Ebak said:

My personal issue here is that @Turbo Toker constantly states he wants clear defined rules so they can be followed to stop cheating...and then pretty much goes out and implies he would cheat to win. In my opinion if you care so much about the rules, you follow their example and don't attempt to 'leverage' the rules in your favor.

I would not cheat. I'm against cheating, that's why this 7 page thread exists.

Furthermore, if the only punishment for looking at an opponent's dial was that they got to change one of yours or whatever without the punishment ever escalating, then it's not even cheating anymore, it'd be just like revealing a red maneuver while stressed.

That's another reason why I bring this up is that I don't want cheating to be reduced to a legal exploit.

You're being just as boneheaded as everyone accuses me of being when you you brand me a cheater. If I was a cheater, I'd just keep my mouth shut on this topic and actually do it. It's also an ad hominem. For the sake of argument, let's say that I am a cheater. That has no bearing on the truth of my argument.

1 hour ago, VanderLegion said:

Did your opponent straight up lie and say you looked at a dial when you never even touched it?

The point Reinhart was making was that someone, especially someone who's likely to try and sneak a peek at your dials is the type of person who could call the judge over and accuse the other person of looking at their dials, because if we follow the OP's plan, that means an instant win.

Now of course it's going up to the judge to decide if that actually happened or not, but since the judge wasn't there to see it then you end up in "he said, she said" debate with no way of knowing who actually did what. It's not like the other tables are going to be able to help and even the spectators if there are any may be able to help.

So you have a completely unenforceable rule that could potentially be used as a weapon by someone inclined to cheat. So at best you've done nothing good, and very likely have made things worse. All in the name of fixing something that is most likely not even a problem in the first place.

3 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

The point Reinhart was making was that someone, especially someone who's likely to try and sneak a peek at your dials is the type of person who could call the judge over and accuse the other person of looking at their dials, because if we follow the OP's plan, that means an instant win.

Now of course it's going up to the judge to decide if that actually happened or not, but since the judge wasn't there to see it then you end up in "he said, she said" debate with no way of knowing who actually did what. It's not like the other tables are going to be able to help and even the spectators if there are any may be able to help.

So you have a completely unenforceable rule that could potentially be used as a weapon by someone inclined to cheat. So at best you've done nothing good, and very likely have made things worse. All in the name of fixing something that is most likely not even a problem in the first place.

I was agreeing with him, just pointing out another possible scenario; that someone can claim you looked at their dial to try to get a free win when you did nothing of the sort.