Detailing situation:

opponent had A umpmaster with Gonk on it and one damage card. The end of the game was rapidly approaching. Tactically, one option he could play for was to retain full points on the Jump. Jump also was equipped with Experimental Interface.

Opponent moved the Jumpmasters. Surveys the battlefield. Announces "focus." Places focus token. Announces Gonk's ability to put a token on Gonk. Then realizes that he cannot also add that token to the Jumpmasters. Declares that he wants to rescind the focus token. I'm actually inclined to allow him to, but opponent insists that he has the right to do so because he didn't measure anything.

Is this correct? I understand "focus...err, I mean evade" as a fix, but are you allowed to rescind two actions back when you realize you goofed up? Just want to understand how "casual" the rules are baked to be. As said, I was inclined to allow it, but this doesn't sound like a right that a rules system would grant a player.

Not sure on the ruling myself, though I am interested. I've always thought of it as the moment the token/template hits the table, its set.

Honestly, I've got a lot of time for people to take stuff back as long as they do it before they reveal anything that wasn't previously clear (e.g. feel free to change from a focus to an evade, but once you place that boost template or get your range ruler out, it's locked in.

I don't think there's a technical rule written for exactly when an action is 'locked in' from that perspective, except the aforementioned 'when the template comes out' rule which is in the book or FAQ somewhere.

My personal ruling:

In a casual game or a seasonal tournament, take-backs are fine as long as no new information was revealed (a dial, rolling a die, etc.) and no repositioning has occurred.

In a Store Champs or higher level of tournament: once the token hits the table, you're committed, unless your opponent is willing to allow you to take it back. Thinking carefully before making choices should be encouraged, and allowing take-backs slows the game down.

1 hour ago, Clutterbuck said:

Detailing situation:

opponent had A umpmaster with Gonk on it and one damage card. The end of the game was rapidly approaching. Tactically, one option he could play for was to retain full points on the Jump. Jump also was equipped with Experimental Interface.

Opponent moved the Jumpmasters. Surveys the battlefield. Announces "focus." Places focus token. Announces Gonk's ability to put a token on Gonk. Then realizes that he cannot also add that token to the Jumpmasters. Declares that he wants to rescind the focus token. I'm actually inclined to allow him to, but opponent insists that he has the right to do so because he didn't measure anything.

Is this correct? I understand "focus...err, I mean evade" as a fix, but are you allowed to rescind two actions back when you realize you goofed up? Just want to understand how "casual" the rules are baked to be. As said, I was inclined to allow it, but this doesn't sound like a right that a rules system would grant a player.

Measuring has nothing to do with your ability to rescind anything. Once he announced his focus action and placed that token on the table - that action is complete. So then he announced he would use Experimental Interface (EI) to place a shield token on Gonk - But at that point realizes he messed up and should have placed a shield on Gonk with his first action and then used EI to recover the shield.

He clearly made the error and has no right to "insist" that he be allowed to change it. That allowance would be up to YOU and whether or not you decide to allow it or not and as EdgeOfDreams said - might depend on the nature of the tournament. If he was acting like a jerk - I definitely would not let him do it.

As you said - saying first that you will do one action and quickly correcting yourself mid-sentence is one thing. Going through the complete announcement and placement of tokens and THEN deciding after announcing EI or PTL for a second action - that the first action was a mistake - is a totally different situation.

I don't have the rules in front of me and it's too much trouble to pull them up on my phone at the moment but I believe the way it's written is that once you declare an action you're committed. You may want to double check me on that but I'm pretty sure that's right. So technically as soon as you say it you're committed to at least attempting it if it's something like a boost or barrel roll.

Now, having said that, my personal way of handling, actions I don't mind people taking stuff back or even multiple things as long as nothing has changed in the game state to give them additional information. So in the specific case you describe I presonally feel that allowing them to redo it is just the sporting thing to do and I would 100% have allowed it although technically I'm pretty sure by rule you could deny it.

55 minutes ago, sharrrp said:

I don't have the rules in front of me and it's too much trouble to pull them up on my phone at the moment but I believe the way it's written is that once you declare an action you're committed. You may want to double check me on that but I'm pretty sure that's right. So technically as soon as you say it you're committed to at least attempting it if it's something like a boost or barrel roll.

Now, having said that, my personal way of handling, actions I don't mind people taking stuff back or even multiple things as long as nothing has changed in the game state to give them additional information. So in the specific case you describe I presonally feel that allowing them to redo it is just the sporting thing to do and I would 100% have allowed it although technically I'm pretty sure by rule you could deny it.

+1 to this. As others have said, if they measure for a target lock, or a boost or barrel roll, then yeah.. can't take that back as new information has been provided you have to stick with it.

Per the Rules Reference for Focus:

"To perform the action,assign one focus token to the ship."

So once the token is down - the action has been performed.

From the FAQ under Missed Opportunities:

"Players are expected to follow the game’s rules, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. It is all players’ responsibility to
maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he or she cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his or her opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity."

So again - if a player wants to change something after the fact, he must get the consent of his opponent. I believe that you can make some allowance for opponents to correct errors and offer a sense of fair play, but in this case your opponent was wrong for telling you that it was his "right" to rescind the action.

3 hours ago, Clutterbuck said:

opponent had A umpmaster with Gonk on it and one damage card.

Gonna like these umpmaster...

2 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

Once he announced his focus action and placed that token on the table - that action is complete.

I'd agree, once you complete all steps of a given action that action is complete and there's no going back, without the other guy allowing it. There's some actions such as TL that once you measure you're locked in as well.

But measuring in of itself has nothing to do with it, especially when there's no measurment involved. Once the action is completed, it's too late to change it, without approval.

I'm amused that the " because I didn't measure anything " reasoning is somehow justification. He screwed up, but nothing was measured so a take-back is ok? I don't think so.

Two choices are available to you:

1. Be sporting and allow the take-back.
2. Be strict and not allow the take-back.

Personally, I would choose depending on whether the opponent was being genuine in his mistake, or he'd been playing like a d!ck.

13 hours ago, Parravon said:

I'm amused that the " because I didn't measure anything " reasoning is somehow justification. He screwed up, but nothing was measured so a take-back is ok? I don't think so.

Two choices are available to you:

1. Be sporting and allow the take-back.
2. Be strict and not allow the take-back.

Personally, I would choose depending on whether the opponent was being genuine in his mistake, or he'd been playing like a d!ck.

This is accurate, though I will say that he may be used to a more, "Fly Casual" setting that used to be widely accepted -- the thought process there would be, "I haven't actually changed the game state or gained new knowledge," so there is nothing impacted if they change their mind.

I 100% get the being strict bit is absolutely valid. I also think, in an instance when literally nothing in the game state changes outside of that player's turn, and no new knowledge was gained, then someone being "strict" is actually playing to WAAC.

That doesn't make them a bad person, or wrong. Just means the community has taken a definitive shift.

I will always allow it in games vs me, regardless of the attitude of my opponent, as I don't think meeting ugliness with ugliness is the way to go.

Rules 100% back up the "strict" player, though, so OP was in his right to refuse.

22 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

This is accurate, though I will say that he may be used to a more, "Fly Casual" setting that used to be widely accepted -- the thought process there would be, "I haven't actually changed the game state or gained new knowledge," so there is nothing impacted if they change their mind.

I 100% get the being strict bit is absolutely valid. I also think, in an instance when literally nothing in the game state changes outside of that player's turn, and no new knowledge was gained, then someone being "strict" is actually playing to WAAC.

That doesn't make them a bad person, or wrong. Just means the community has taken a definitive shift.

I will always allow it in games vs me, regardless of the attitude of my opponent, as I don't think meeting ugliness with ugliness is the way to go.

Rules 100% back up the "strict" player, though, so OP was in his right to refuse.

I think a lot depends on the nature of the game and whether it a Store Championship or higher level tournament. Deciding on an action and then backing it up to change it wastes time. At the higher level tournaments, you expect people to be prepared to play, know the rules, and play in an efficient manner. Time is usually very limited. I would rather my opponent take a few more moments to decide rather than commit, change their mind, rescind the action and then choose something else.

I don't think it's a WAAC attitude, but practical to insure you play at a reasonable pace. A recent SC I went to had 31 and I barely had time to take a bathroom break between rounds. Regionals was even tighter on time.

I have been in plenty of casual tournaments where I helped a newer player make better decisions on their actions and redo something versus putting their ship in a bad position that I got a huge advantage from. I also try to make sure that players learning the game know that in larger events - it's expected that once you declare and commit to an action - it's generally not OK to change it without asking your opponent first.

I think of it like moving a piece in Chess. Once you take your hand off a piece, you can't rescind the movement.

5 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

I think a lot depends on the nature of the game and whether it a Store Championship or higher level tournament. Deciding on an action and then backing it up to change it wastes time. At the higher level tournaments, you expect people to be prepared to play, know the rules, and play in an efficient manner. Time is usually very limited. I would rather my opponent take a few more moments to decide rather than commit, change their mind, rescind the action and then choose something else.

I don't think it's a WAAC attitude, but practical to insure you play at a reasonable pace. A recent SC I went to had 31 and I barely had time to take a bathroom break between rounds. Regionals was even tighter on time.

I have been in plenty of casual tournaments where I helped a newer player make better decisions on their actions and redo something versus putting their ship in a bad position that I got a huge advantage from. I also try to make sure that players learning the game know that in larger events - it's expected that once you declare and commit to an action - it's generally not OK to change it without asking your opponent first.

I think of it like moving a piece in Chess. Once you take your hand off a piece, you can't rescind the movement.

I'm sorry, but you and your opponent must really be playing slowly if this is an issue. If it was just the opponent, that would have been called out as active slow playing long before they are making decisions on tokens.

If it WAS an actual Slow Player (running out the clock), that's a very specific example of when I agree and would show no mercy. As that is such an edge case, though, I can't reasonably expect that that was the OP's consideration, and is just an attempt to justify a WAAC attitude (not suggesting you HAVE one, mind).

Some follow up:. The incident in question took place at Worlds. I wasn't going to hold the opponent to the move, but mentioned others might not be so forgiving. He asserted his "right." I basically whatever-ed this, and he actually called a judge after the game, who told him he was right. Said judge seemed, at best, to not understand the question. I'd have said nothing to said judge but the word "appeal" if I had cared. I mostly wanted to make sure I understood the matter properly. I let the opponent do his thing, got a couple more damage on the Jump so that it didn't matter, and then we were done.

Only unpleasant game/opponent in the whole day.

Now calling a judge over to back you up when your opponent has already said they'll allow something probably is slow play.

4 hours ago, digitalbusker said:

Now calling a judge over to back you up when your opponent has already said they'll allow something probably is slow play.

Judge was called after the game ended, so the player must have really been going for the long con...

>.>

Delay of the whole tournament, then! Run the blackguard out of town on a rail!

Had a slow player at the last store tourney I went to. Both new players, playing next to me. Time was getting short because being both new, they were hesitant to move and take actions. My game was over, and I see that the one kid had lost his Hounds Tooth, and a z-95, and was down to the Pup and a Y-Wing, while his opponent had the Falcon still on the table. They were told there was only about 8 minutes left, and they asked what happens if the game goes to time. I said they would count up the point values of the destroyed ships, and that determined the winner. The kid with destroyed Hound's Tooth obviously got worried with his big ship and fighter out, and the other guy only having lost a single ship. The other guy, suddenly took a VERY strong interest in his own dial, picking it up, re-assigning his maneuver, putting it down, picking it up, re-thinking his choice, putting it down. When asked if he was set, he didn't respond, just sat staring. Clearly trying to burn the clock.

1 turn later, the time ended, no more damage was dealt as suddenly the Falcon grew a yellow streak and started just evaded and moved as fast as possible to the other side of the board in the time it had. They counted up final points.. the guy with the dead Hound CRUSHED the other guy in points. Turns out he had almost nothing on the hound. Slaver, the title, 2 low value crew, and cannon I think. It was worth about 35 points. The Z-95 was N'Dru with Lone wolf and nothing else. That Y-wing somehow had most of the points. Kavil, with a TLT, and kitted out. The Falcon that remained was only about 40 points (outer rim smuggler), so the slow player slow-played himself right out of the match.

It was so gratifying to see, especially for the kid who it turned out had his father drive him over 3 hours to the store to compete in his first tourney. I think if he had lost due to a slow play it would have soured his first match.

17 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

This is accurate, though I will say that he may be used to a more, "Fly Casual" setting that used to be widely accepted

Fly Casual was never intended to be used as an excuse for sloppy play. Sure most people would've likely been ok with doing it, and at anything other then say Regionals or World I'd likely let him take it back. The rules are still quite clear and the Judge in this case got it completely wrong.

17 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

I 100% get the being strict bit is absolutely valid. I also think, in an instance when literally nothing in the game state changes outside of that player's turn, and no new knowledge was gained, then someone being "strict" is actually playing to WAAC.

No, it's not WAAC, it's simply wanting to play the game correctly, because again Fly Casual shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy play.

What is IMO worse in this case is the other players attitude, going as far as to call the judge over after the fact even though he was allowed to take back the action smacks of a true WAAC type.

The general rule I follow is that until you start measuring, revealing, putting tokens on the table it's not too late to go back.

For example, in the situation above, I'd say no, because that would have him pick up a focus token. If he had just said "focus and Gonk" and not done any of the physical actions associated with it (in this case, the tokens) I'd be fine with him saying "wait, instead..."

TO here.... I have had this come up in tournaments, mostly in late rounds at bigger event when more is on the table. This is the way I always judged...

When you declare your action, you must complete it if possible. If your opponent allows you to take it back, then that is acceptable, but otherwise you have to complete your action. I know this might seem too authoritarian, but it saves people from going back and forth and stalling the game. Most of the time the table solves it on their own. Most people are good about being fair, but you do get those select few that want to make a big deal about it.

3 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Fly Casual was never intended to be used as an excuse for sloppy play. Sure most people would've likely been ok with doing it, and at anything other then say Regionals or World I'd likely let him take it back. The rules are still quite clear and the Judge in this case got it completely wrong.

No, it's not WAAC, it's simply wanting to play the game correctly, because again Fly Casual shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy play.

What is IMO worse in this case is the other players attitude, going as far as to call the judge over after the fact even though he was allowed to take back the action smacks of a true WAAC type.

This. Couldn't agree more.

3 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

TO here.... I have had this come up many times in tournaments, mostly in late rounds at bigger event when more is on the table. This is the way I always judged...

When you declare your action, you must complete it if possible. If your opponent allows you to take it back, then that is acceptable, but otherwise you have to complete your action. I know this might seem too authoritarian, but it saves people from going back and forth and stalling the game.

That, to me, is the safest way to do it.

If I make a "mistake", I don't ever ask to take it back unless I'm at home playing with my kids AND we are trying to learn how to play the game OR I'm teaching someone how to play. If I travel anywhere to play, I roll with my mistakes.

Deal with the consequences of a bad decision and you'll be better off for it, eventually if not sooner. However, that's just me.

51 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Fly Casual was never intended to be used as an excuse for sloppy play. Sure most people would've likely been ok with doing it, and at anything other then say Regionals or World I'd likely let him take it back. The rules are still quite clear and the Judge in this case got it completely wrong.

No, it's not WAAC, it's simply wanting to play the game correctly, because again Fly Casual shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy play.

What is IMO worse in this case is the other players attitude, going as far as to call the judge over after the fact even though he was allowed to take back the action smacks of a true WAAC type.

Flying casual was about keeping the "fun" in X-Wing, even at the competitive level (or that was my interpretation).

While fully within the rules, stopping an opponent from doing this, while during their activation phase for that ship and not having gained any new knowledge (which I highlight again so folks don't think I'm being completely absurd, just a little absurd), means they aren't going to have fun (obviously), and I'm likely not having fun if I'm at the point where I feel I need to do this to win.

And justifying it as something you do during a Regionals or Worlds is WAAC because you're only doing it at those level of events because you want to win them... at any cost. You can justify it under more expecting a higher level of play at those events, but that's actively stepping away from flying casual (I'm not trying to argue that that's a bad thing, though.).

And I disagree that this is sloppy playing. This is clearly an opinion and I don't expect anyone to share it, but sloppy playing is moving too quickly, accidentally moving ships, bumping dials/setting them poorly, not taking the time to make sure you're perfectly within your nubs... etc... OP's example is someone thinking through their turn out loud. That's not sloppy. It's certainly not necessary, but I'd call a judge on a sloppy or actual slow player pretty quickly. This is literally harmless. After they've moved on to another ship, I'm not for going back and making adjustments, regardless of game state, and I do understand an opponent making a poor choice works to your benefit. I'm just not going to pursue that as my win condition .

Lastly, I'm not suggesting this player was flying casually. They definitely sound like they were being a tool. I'm simply suggesting that they may be more used to playing in a more fly casual setting.