8 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Flying jumpmasters?

Yeah, but who is gonna fly 'em kid, you?

This topic reminds me of the Denver Regionals and the Minnesota(?) regionals.

Denver regionals the player flew Miranda off the board. Was doing a straight maneuver but set up a little wrong and barely was off and judge ruled it to be okay because of a "table bump". Was a huge controversy, not because of the ruling but because of the bump.

The other regional the player lined his Decimator a little off and it ended up taking his Decimator off. Judge ruled it to be fine and was just and accident with the template being aligned wrong. No controversy afterwards.

BOTH cases the players called for a judge. That is who should be making these calls. No player should be in position to be called the bad guy or be called the hero for that matter. Real thread should be about Floor Rules.

5 minutes ago, Tbetts94 said:

BOTH cases the players called for a judge. That is who should be making these calls.

I simply don't get how you consider these cases to be similar. At all.

In one, the player obviously and catastrophically mis-set a dial, sending him the exact opposite direction of what he intended. Again, it was the first turn and it was obviously a non-tactical mistake.

Then you cite two cases of people very slightly mis-aligning their ships -- or possibly not doing precisely straight maneuvers, or possibly having the ships bumped out of position, whatever -- and you honestly think those two situations are the same as the first situation?

I find that very difficult to believe.

It's not a matter of being the Bad Guy, or of being the Hero. It's a matter of simply being a Decent Human Being (who is capable of recognizing obvious distinctions in a tactical game). It isn't that high a bar, believe me, given that I can meet it.

It's the difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral, not to put too fine a point on it.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I simply don't get how you consider these cases to be similar. At all.

In one, the player obviously and catastrophically mis-set a dial, sending him the exact opposite direction of what he intended. Again, it was the first turn and it was obviously a non-tactical mistake.

Then you cite two cases of people very slightly mis-aligning their ships -- or possibly not doing precisely straight maneuvers, or possibly having the ships bumped out of position, whatever -- and you honestly think those two situations are the same as the first situation?

I find that very difficult to believe.

It's not a matter of being the Bad Guy, or of being the Hero. It's a matter of simply being a Decent Human Being (who is capable of recognizing obvious distinctions in a tactical game). It isn't that high a bar, believe me, given that I can meet it.

It's the difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral, not to put too fine a point on it.

I see your point. I understand it. It makes sense. In my opinion though, a player shouldn't put another player in a position to win that way.

I use to have the opinion that if you missed a trigger or forgot an action you should always ask your opponent to get it back because it was the obvious thing to do and tactically it wouldn't make sense not to and worse case scenario they say no. Situations like a Focus, Cloak, and FCS. However, I realized I'm putting them in a position to feel bad if they say no and if they say yes then now they'll feel like "**** I could had made the cut if I didn't let them, it was their mistake after all".

Now I have the opinion and I try to stick to it that if I missed a trigger or did something stupid in the game it's my fault, not because my opponent wouldn't let me.

6 minutes ago, Tbetts94 said:

I see your point. I understand it. It makes sense. In my opinion though, a player shouldn't put another player in a position to win that way.

And again we're getting caught up on an obvious distinction you're missing:

Allowing the player to fix a first-turn mis-set dial isn't for the win. It's to play the ******' game.

I am not saying "allow all take-backs." I'm saying that a Decent Human Being allows this take-back.

EDIT: FWIW, I do think it's mildly poor form to ask. But, again, nobody across from me would have to ask. It doesn't matter if it's the final table at Worlds. When I see that dial, I will instantly say, "Just do the opposite turn." And if it's somebody I like, I'll add: "You dumb-***."

A decent human being would also disallow the take back. It's a tournament. Git Gud!

3 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

A decent human being would also disallow the take back. It's a tournament. Git Gud!

Exactly. Because setting the dial to fly off the table in the first turn is certainly a matter of "not gittin' gud." There's no way it's a matter of distraction, or simple fatigue, or something akin to dyslexia, or 700 other more likely explanations.

No, it's just more likely the player "waddn't gud enuf" to know that the 3-turn would send him off the table.

Well, now it's all cleared up, thank RNGesus!

47 minutes ago, Tbetts94 said:

This topic reminds me of the Denver Regionals and the Minnesota(?) regionals.

Denver regionals the player flew Miranda off the board. Was doing a straight maneuver but set up a little wrong and barely was off and judge ruled it to be okay because of a "table bump". Was a huge controversy, not because of the ruling but because of the bump.

The other regional the player lined his Decimator a little off and it ended up taking his Decimator off. Judge ruled it to be fine and was just and accident with the template being aligned wrong. No controversy afterwards.

BOTH cases the players called for a judge. That is who should be making these calls. No player should be in position to be called the bad guy or be called the hero for that matter. Real thread should be about Floor Rules.

Big difference here. In these examples the "off the board" certainly could be accidental which is how it appears the judge rules in these cases. Now should a player set up so close to the edge of the board? Probably not although this can also be seen as a small thing early (during setup) that leads to a big issue later.

Flying your ship completely off the board; no way some little bump or poorly aligned template caused that so it isn't really an accident but a full blown mistake.

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

And again we're getting caught up on an obvious distinction you're missing:

Allowing the player to fix a first-turn mis-set dial isn't for the win. It's to play the ******' game.

I am not saying "allow all take-backs." I'm saying that a Decent Human Being allows this take-back.

EDIT: FWIW, I do think it's mildly poor form to ask. But, again, nobody across from me would have to ask. It doesn't matter if it's the final table at Worlds. When I see that dial, I will instantly say, "Just do the opposite turn." And if it's somebody I like, I'll add: "You dumb-***."

That's fine to allow it. I allow missed actions and have let people change stuff all the time.

But I'm not going to say someone else is not a decent human being because they wanted to let a third party decide. I'm not going to throw a fit and forfeit the match because I ****** up and put the blame on my opponent who didn't even make any decision.

I think we're not on the same page, but still in the same book. In my opinion, fly casual, have fun, if it's a difficult situation let the judge decide so you can still have beers after. If you want to there's nothing wrong with volunteering to let them change the dial. That's all I'm saying.

4 minutes ago, StevenO said:

Big difference here. In these examples the "off the board" certainly could be accidental which is how it appears the judge rules in these cases. Now should a player set up so close to the edge of the board? Probably not although this can also be seen as a small thing early (during setup) that leads to a big issue later.

Flying your ship completely off the board; no way some little bump or poorly aligned template caused that so it isn't really an accident but a full blown mistake.

Yeah it's probably bad example. Main point though is that a judge made a decision and not the opponent. The player shouldn't be upset at the opponent and the opponent shouldn't feel bad afterwards.

2 minutes ago, Tbetts94 said:

Yeah it's probably bad example. Main point though is that a judge made a decision and not the opponent. The player shouldn't be upset at the opponent and the opponent shouldn't feel bad afterwards.

The opponent did make the decision to call the judge, hoping/knowing there's only one possible outcome once the judge is called.

But ... !

It sounds to me like the opponent (the OP) flirted with Lawful Evil, and decided he didn't like it. IMO, that's commendable, and I'm glad he made the original post and followed along.

15 minutes ago, Tbetts94 said:

That's fine to allow it. I allow missed actions and have let people change stuff all the time.

Okay, I'm really glad I'm arguing this with you, because you seem like a Decent Human Being.

I hope you'll indulge me, and satisfy my curiosity with as detailed a response as you feel comfortable giving:

"Why, exactly, do you 'allowed missed actions and let people change stuff all the time'?" (BTW, I assume by 'all the time,' you actually mean 'often, depending on circumstances,' and not literally 'all the time,' because that would make you X-Wing Jesus, and I seriously can't compete with that.)

I think a considered answer to this, if everybody gave it real thought, would be sort of an X-Wing Sorting Hat. (I mean, the one question alone really only sorts for Slytherin, but you know.)

1 hour ago, Tbetts94 said:

If it's an experienced player, then they know the importance of the dial and should be held to their mistake.

Things happen by accident, but until the player faces the consequences they are never going to learn.

Going by that logic, one should let an experienced player change his dial, but not a new player. An experienced player doesn't need to learn because he can already be assumed to know 'the importance of the dial' (sic) and there is nothing new he can learn in that regard. So you might as well let it slide and increase the challenge for yourself so you can hone your skills against a full squad. A new player still needs to learn, and if I read you correctly, not letting that player correct his mistake is apparently an effective way of teaching.

It's kind of funny how this issue has been warped into the gauge for a person's decency. Like suddenly, the person who makes a mistake must have had dyslexia or the person may have fell victim to any number of things that caused the wrong dial entry. Of course the OP could have been suffering from all those things, too. Only the decent player (or the world-class winners according to some) will magnanimously say, "It's okay, chap. By all means correct yourself. We all know the first round doesn't matter." But all those negative influences DO matter later, especially when I get my range one Fenn Rau shot.

I'm okay with people who would let their opponent change the dial, but let's stop kidding ourselves that doing that makes a player Dr. Martin Luther Gandhi Mother Teresa King Saint Francis of Assisi.

Part of the joy of the game is learning from your mistakes. I used to make dumb mistakes like this all the time. I make fewer now, but staying within the game's rules is what makes it fun. Why not see how much damage you can do with your two ships instead of quitting the match?

Why not let the dude who cheated at worlds change his dials? He was probably just tired after all that tournament play. I know, I know: not the same thing. But I'd say turn one is important if that's the turn you fly off the board. Rules only matter if they affect things immediately? Is stealing okay if you don't get caught? If the person is wealthy enough that it doesn't really hurt them? That's a slippery slope to go down. But I think players can traverse that slope. Just don't think it makes you some kind of fishing saint because you make one decision over the other.

11 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The opponent did make the decision to call the judge, hoping/knowing there's only one possible outcome once the judge is called.

But ... !

It sounds to me like the opponent (the OP) flirted with Lawful Evil, and decided he didn't like it. IMO, that's commendable, and I'm glad he made the original post and followed along.

I agree that OP made a decision to call the judge for this reason and may as well said no to the player originally based on his intentions at the time outlined in the original post. I'll ask my opponent if we should call a judge for any situation that could be controversial because I don't want myself or the opponent to feel bad about making a call.

What I think should had happened in this situation: Player 1: Moves off the board, says, "Oh ****! That sucks, oh well, my mistake" Player 2: "It's all good bro, go ahead and change it" or Player 1: Moves off the board, says, "Oh ****! That sucks, should WE call a judge?" Player 2: "Sure, that sounds good".

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Okay, I'm really glad I'm arguing this with you, because you seem like a Decent Human Being.

I hope you'll indulge me, and satisfy my curiosity with as detailed a response as you feel comfortable giving:

"Why, exactly, do you 'allowed missed actions and let people change stuff all the time'?" (BTW, I assume by 'all the time,' you actually mean 'often, depending on circumstances,' and not literally 'all the time,' because that would make you X-Wing Jesus, and I seriously can't compete with that.)

I think a considered answer to this, if everybody gave it real thought, would be sort of an X-Wing Sorting Hat. (I mean, the one question alone really only sorts for Slytherin, but you know.)

Sure! I allow them simply because I want to play them at their best. I also feel that the more I've offered missed actions and such they will more than likely return the favor and they'll offer because I usually try not to ask. You can see how the World's Final match between Justin & Nand is a perfect example of this. Now, I'm not X-Wing Jesus because there will be times that the game state completely changes. For instance, they forgot to TL, I now move in a spot that they could had fired torpedoes, and they ask for the TL action. Those type of situations I won't allow because a tactical decision had to be made before I moved. From what I've read we agree on those types of situations.

15 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

Going by that logic, one should let an experienced player change his dial, but not a new player. An experienced player doesn't need to learn because he can already be assumed to know 'the importance of the dial' (sic) and there is nothing new he can learn in that regard. So you might as well let it slide and increase the challenge for yourself so you can hone your skills against a full squad. A new player still needs to learn, and if I read you correctly, not letting that player correct his mistake is apparently an effective way of teaching.

New player is getting use to the game entirely. Being hard on them will turn them away from the game. That's why you let things slide. You let them know at the same time, "hey, it could bite you big time so double check your dials". Hopefully they learn from that and have a positive experience. Once you get involved with the game more and become a veteran, you know what can happen and you shouldn't put your opponent in the position to make that decision. Just own your mistakes. We have all had that one moment before the last FAQ where we dialed in a red maneuver and we were stressed and the opponent flew you off the board. Never happened again.

1 minute ago, Tbetts94 said:

New player is getting use to the game entirely. Being hard on them will turn them away from the game. That's why you slide. You let them knoNEVErw at the same time, "hey, it could bite you big time so double check your dials". Hopefully they learn from that and have a positive experience. Once you get involved with the game more and become a veteran, you know what can happen and you shouldn't put your opponent in the position to make that decision. Just own your mistakes. We have all had that one moment before the last FAQ where we dialed in a red maneuver and we were stressed and the opponent flew you off the board. Never happened again.

By all means, allow takebackws in a pickup game. At a tournament, it's perfectly fair to not allow them. You're not an evil person for doing that.

Following the rules should NEVER result in someone being accused of being a ******.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It sounds to me like the opponent (the OP) flirted with Lawful Evil, and decided he didn't like it.

Lawful Neutral.

Lawful Evil would imply manipulating events with malicious intent, which I'm sure is not the case. And it's not all that uncommon for people to feel bad for following the letter of the law; just look at all those poor folks tasked with enforcing Trump's travel ban.

D&D alignments? Really? It's not like he went in and slaughtered a kobold village.

The opponent should have set his dial the right way if he dialed it to fly off the board it doesn't make the OP a bad person.

Stop with this self-righteous fly casual militancy.

4 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Lawful Neutral.

Lawful Evil would imply manipulating events with malicious intent, which I'm sure is not the case.

@Joe Boss Red Seven is chaotic good.

2 minutes ago, E Chu Ta said:

@Joe Boss Red Seven is chaotic good.

Definitely chaotic.

10 hours ago, jesper_h said:

I'm not sure what the issue is here? I'm not calling anybody out or saying anybody is wrong. There's no reason to try and pick holes in my statements or turn this into an argument. Just offering a point of view here, mate.

If you made a mistake in a game, and your opponent offered to let it slide, would you what call a judge over and report them for cheating and violating the rules? Come on, man.

I would say that there is no rule that can allow that to happen and I'd fly off the board.

I wouldn't call a judge over about it.

49 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Lawful Neutral.

Enh. First entry in a Google search for Lawful Evil: http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants [in the game] within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts [in the game]. [...] He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. [...]

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds."

I'm pretty comfortable sticking with Lawful Evil.

It's still a stupid description. But this is a fun game to play. From the fourth entry in a google search (because we all know the authority of google sources isn't determined by its result number):

"A tyrannical ruler who drafts the rules to suit himself, a corrupt lawyer or judge who uses the law to mask his own misdeeds, . . . the ruthless bosses and minions of organized crime, [and an x-wing player who doesn't give a take back to an opponent] are all examples of lawful evil characters."

I'm pretty comfortable saying that this is a self-aggrandizing smugfest. LOL.

4 hours ago, mfairhu1 said:

What would Yoda do?

Yoda would let his opponent destroy himself.

If Star Wars Chess on Sega CD is canon, then he would use his force powers to force his opponent to set the wrong maneuver, like he did when he got a Stormtrooper to blow his own head off.