Pronounced (thereabouts):

GIN-UH-TAY-US

To be clear, @Tlfj200, it's not that I didn't believe in you, I didn't believe in CIS.

14 minutes ago, Jenks0118 said:

Didn't escalate to a marshal because I was told by a judge no time extensions would be given at the start of the game, we had already had 6 judge calls during this match and I was behind with time being a factor.

WAT?

Uh... man, I'm sorry. That also likely needs a marshal call. That's pretty inexcusable.

6 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

WAT?

Uh... man, I'm sorry. That also likely needs a marshal call. That's pretty inexcusable.

I was more surprised that the judge gave the play on after I asked if we should re-do the entire attack or just the defense roll. Given options A and B, he chose option 3.

But yeah, making declarations like that isn't super wise. You never know what kind of stuff is going to come up in a game and you back yourself into a corner as a judge by doing so, let alone allow the players to weigh the cost/benefit of getting the call right vs. having enough time to finish the game.

Live and learn. I probably still would have lost the game anyway.

2 hours ago, Micanthropyre said:

Its really too bad that they created a unique mechanic for a ship, added a wholesome upgrade like Gravitic Deflection to complement it, then burned it all to the ground with Chertek and Sun Fac's abilities being tied to the dumpster fire of Ensnare.

You guys are entitled to your opinion.

I've grown a bit weary of all the "Ensnare was objectively bad design" claims.

Maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. Is shouting about it going to make it go away?

It's been printed.

Whether it's competitively priced or not isn't really our call anyway.

It exists.

If it's broken, somebody prove it.

Seriously.

If it's not, then move on.

6 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

You guys are entitled to your opinion.

I've grown a bit weary of all the "Ensnare was objectively bad design" claims.

Maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. Is shouting about it going to make it go away?

It's been printed.

Whether it's competitively priced or not isn't really our call anyway.

It exists.

If it's broken, somebody prove it.

Seriously.

If it's not, then move on.

Objectively bad design is a bit of a weird stance, because that's a meaningless phrase.

People are complaining that ensnare is incredibly unfun/uninteractive. Not really the same thing as broken. It's easy to demonstrate it's unfun - just watch a game or two with it. Broken? Different question entirely. Important to not get them conflated.

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Objectively bad design is a bit of a weird stance, because that's a meaningless phrase.

People are complaining that ensnare is incredibly unfun/uninteractive. Not really the same thing as broken. It's easy to demonstrate it's unfun - just watch a game or two with it. Broken? Different question entirely. Important to not get them conflated.

same team

37 minutes ago, Jenks0118 said:

Ugh, at least I'm not alone. Lots of interesting calls at worlds.

Game on stream, shot at my opponent's ship which my opponent thought was obstructed, he rolled an extra die. I said I thought it wasn't, sure enough it wasn't and he agreed. Wanted to just keep the defense roll since he got what he needed, but I mentioned it needed to be re-rolled. Called a judge over, judge said to play on. Didn't escalate to a marshal because I was told by a judge no time extensions would be given at the start of the game, we had already had 6 judge calls during this match and I was behind with time being a factor.

Felt super bad. Should I have escalated to a marshal? Yeah, probably. But a judge making a no extensions declaration from the beginning of the game got into my head and I figured it was best to try and grind out an extra round to make up for it than take a 2 minute loss of time to get a marshal over.

Oh well.

So couple things here:

1. Determine obstruction before defense dice are rolled, not after. More likely than not this is what lead to the play on call

2. Yes, escalate. Always escalate. The Marshal might also hand out a time extension the Judge wouldn't

3. Time extensions are a double-edged sword, as one table getting +10 minutes can put everything behind, and makes even more players angry.

1 hour ago, Jenks0118 said:

shot at my opponent's ship which my opponent thought was obstructed, he rolled an extra die. I said I thought it wasn't, sure enough it wasn't and he agreed. Wanted to just keep the defense roll since he got what he needed, but I mentioned it needed to be re-rolled. Called a judge over, judge said to play on.

Now that right there is bad refereeing in any sport.

in soccer, the referee can rule “play on” on a foul if the non-fouling team gets or retains the ball and calling the foul and resetting the play would be, in his judgment, to their disadvantage

Similarly, the Floor Rules give the judge the power to rule “not a big deal; play on” in minor infractions like this, but it’s seriously bad to do so when it benefits the infracting player.

like, if he had rolled an extra die but blanked out, that would be a good time to say “play on,” rather than giving him a second chance with fewer dice. But not rerolling after he got what he needed by using an extra die? Throw the challenge flag!

6 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

Now that right there is bad refereeing in any sport.

in soccer, the referee can rule “play on” on a foul if the non-fouling team gets or retains the ball and calling the foul and resetting the play would be, in his judgment, to their disadvantage

Similarly, the Floor Rules give the judge the power to rule “not a big deal; play on” in minor infractions like this, but it’s seriously bad to do so when it benefits the infracting player.

like, if he had rolled an extra die but blanked out, that would be a good time to say “play on,” rather than giving him a second chance with fewer dice. But not rerolling after he got what he needed by using an extra die? Throw the challenge flag!

Here's the problem: No matter what happens it benefits someone. The judge shouldn't rule based on the outcome of a roll because that's explicitly not how the rules work. And because dice were already rolled, and the obstruction wasn't measured before the attack the Judge has to ask if anything was bumped, and if the game state has changed, and then rule. It's why obstruction should always be measured before an attack, not after - there's a whole step for it and everything.

7 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Here's the problem: No matter what happens it benefits someone. The judge shouldn't rule based on the outcome of a roll because that's explicitly not how the rules work. And because dice were already rolled, and the obstruction wasn't measured before the attack the Judge has to ask if anything was bumped, and if the game state has changed, and then rule. It's why obstruction should always be measured before an attack, not after - there's a whole step for it and everything.

Fun fact - it doesn't appear that you as the attacker are required to measure whether or not an attack is obstructed until the defender is counting how many dice they'll roll, which is after attack dice have been rolled/modified. Granted, there are very few situations where you wouldn't want to check if it's obstructed or not (I can't think of any off the top of my head but surely at least one exists).

Just now, Brunas said:

Fun fact - it doesn't appear that you as the attacker are required to measure whether or not an attack is obstructed until the defender is counting how many dice they'll roll, which is after attack dice have been rolled/modified. Granted, there are very few situations where you wouldn't want to check if it's obstructed or not (I can't think of any off the top of my head but surely at least one exists).

Sure, but when do you measure range? And when you measure range, do you also measure along the line that would determine obstruction? I had this argument at worlds, technically you don't need to know it until then, but it certainly reads like all relevant abilities should be measured during the measure range step, and if called over as a judge I'd ask what they determined during that step, and rule based on that - not what the gamestate is now because ships do get bumped, despite everyone's best efforts.

2 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Sure, but when do you measure range? And when you measure range, do you also measure along the line that would determine obstruction? I had this argument at worlds, technically you don't need to know it until then, but it certainly reads like all relevant abilities should be measured during the measure range step, and if called over as a judge I'd ask what they determined during that step, and rule based on that - not what the gamestate is now because ships do get bumped, despite everyone's best efforts.

Oh, I agree. I'm mad at "MUH RAW", not disagreeing with you to be clear. It sounds like in this case it wasn't measured in the first place, though.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

Oh, I agree. I'm mad at "MUH RAW", not disagreeing with you to be clear. It sounds like in this case it wasn't measured in the first place, though.

yeah, which is a whole separate problem. If I roll that back, I'm rolling it back to the missed step - not just making them reroll defense dice.

1 hour ago, Bucknife said:

You guys are entitled to your opinion.

I've grown a bit weary of all the "Ensnare was objectively bad design" claims.

Maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. Is shouting about it going to make it go away?

It's been printed.

Whether it's competitively priced or not isn't really our call anyway.

It exists.

If it's broken, somebody prove it.

Seriously.

If it's not, then move on.

Our opinions are all we have though.

There are levers FFG can still pull, and discussing our dislike on the discussion forums seems like a legit way to voice our support of FFG pulling those levers.

10 minutes ago, Brunas said:

"MUH RAW"

I sure as **** ain't going by your RAW, might as well be my RAW.

Sorry, I mean, there's no way RAW is also just an interpretation of the rules.

2 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I sure as **** ain't going by your RAW, might as well be my RAW.

Sorry, I mean, there's no way RAW is also just an interpretation of the rules.

EVERY

SHIP

HAS

REGEN

20 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Sure, but when do you measure range? And when you measure range, do you also measure along the line that would determine obstruction? I had this argument at worlds, technically you don't need to know it until then, but it certainly reads like all relevant abilities should be measured during the measure range step, and if called over as a judge I'd ask what they determined during that step, and rule based on that - not what the gamestate is now because ships do get bumped, despite everyone's best efforts.

I thought it was pretty clear and obvious it wasn't obstructed, my opponent just rolled the extra die and I wondered why. It was also very clearly R1 as the ships were nearly touching, so range wasn't "officially" measured either.

He didn't do it maliciously or anything so that's no slight at either of us, and like I mentioned there's a good chance the call wouldn't have impacted the final result. Just saying the judge ruling was incorrect.

2 minutes ago, Jenks0118 said:

I thought it was pretty clear and obvious it wasn't obstructed, my opponent just rolled the extra die and I wondered why. It was also very clearly R1 as the ships were nearly touching, so range wasn't "officially" measured either.

He didn't do it maliciously or anything so that's no slight at either of us, and like I mentioned there's a good chance the call wouldn't have impacted the final result. Just saying the judge ruling was incorrect.

This why you always declare the obstruction of the shot, and put the ruler on the table - don't let it come up later take the ~30 sec. to measure it now.

51 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Here's the problem: No matter what happens it benefits someone. The judge shouldn't rule based on the outcome of a roll because that's explicitly not how the rules work. And because dice were already rolled, and the obstruction wasn't measured before the attack the Judge has to ask if anything was bumped, and if the game state has changed, and then rule. It's why obstruction should always be measured before an attack, not after - there's a whole step for it and everything.

The rules (Floor rules) do work that way:

"The play on resolution means that, after both players acknowledge the mistake and the Judge determines that neither player was given notable advantage because of it, the game is continued without “going back” and resolving or correcting the mistake."

If a guy rolls 3 dice instead of 2 and gets all blanks, neither player was given a notable advantage because of it, so the game can continue without giving him 2 more dice to try again.

If a guy rolls 3 dice and gets *any* results, the math was skewed in his advantage to get those results so a reroll with the proper number of dice should be called for.

This is up to the Judge's discretion at the time and I'm telling you what I would do in the situation. Others will make their own decisions, of course.

It sounds like, for some reason, according to this account, the Judge decided that rolling an extra green die was not to the defender's advantage.

Isn't there a standing rule on how to resolve instances where the wrong number of dice were rolled though?

I thought the rule was: rolled too few dice? keep existing results, roll missing dice and add them to the pool. rolled too many dice? discard all results, re-roll with the correct number of dice.

2 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

Isn't there a standing rule on how to resolve instances where the wrong number of dice were rolled though?

I thought the rule was: rolled too few dice? keep existing results, roll missing dice and add them to the pool. rolled too many dice? discard all results, re-roll with the correct number of dice.

I think that was 1.0, but yeah that's what I use. My problem is assessing dice results before applying a ruling - saying discard a result of judge's choice- even if they are all the same result - is risky and it's better to just rewind and make it correct. Of course, it's better for everyone if you make sure the correct number are rolled initially.

15 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

The rules (Floor rules) do work that way:

"The play on resolution means that, after both players acknowledge the mistake and the Judge determines that neither player was given notable advantage because of it, the game is continued without “going back” and resolving or correcting the mistake."

If a guy rolls 3 dice instead of 2 and gets all blanks, neither player was given a notable advantage because of it, so the game can continue without giving him 2 more dice to try again.

If a guy rolls 3 dice and gets *any* results, the math was skewed in his advantage to get those results so a reroll with the proper number of dice should be called for.

This is up to the Judge's discretion at the time and I'm telling you what I would do in the situation. Others will make their own decisions, of course.

It sounds like, for some reason, according to this account, the Judge decided that rolling an extra green die was not to the defender's advantage.

So my problem here is what if I get evade and focus focus with a focus vs. 2 hits and I intend to spend? The outcome will be the same regardless of which die is removed and the game should continue if you say it continues if I roll all blanks. I get what you intend, I don't necessarily disagree, but I do think that rulings in this case should be consistent - the defense is rerolled regardless of the results gotten, or the best result is ignored. Changing the ruling on this mid event does no one any favors.

12 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

So my problem here is what if I get evade and focus focus with a focus vs. 2 hits and I intend to spend? The outcome will be the same regardless of which die is removed

I never said to remove a die and not reroll. Rolling three dice and then removing 1 of someone's choice does not rectify the problem at all. Yo rolled too many dice; you don't get to get a benefit. If the ruling is harsh in your direction, well, maybe you'll actually confirm the game state with your opponent before rolling dice next time.

2 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

I never said to remove a die and not reroll. Rolling three dice and then removing 1 of someone's choice does not rectify the problem at all. Yo rolled too many dice; you don't get to get a benefit. If the ruling is harsh in your direction, well, maybe you'll actually confirm the game state with your opponent before rolling dice next time.

You just said if I roll 3 blanks, play on. That's where my problem it, the ruling isn't consistent. Also, it's both players job to make sure the game state it understood, and why you should declare obstruction when you shoot - it's not just the defenders here, it's both.

3 hours ago, Brunas said:

Fun fact - it doesn't appear that you as the attacker are required to measure whether or not an attack is obstructed until the defender is counting how many dice they'll roll, which is after attack dice have been rolled/modified. Granted, there are very few situations where you wouldn't want to check if it's obstructed or not (I can't think of any off the top of my head but surely at least one exists).

I can name one.

I lost a game because we spent the last 30 seconds of time measuring if something was obstructed, it was the last shot and I already had my dials ready for next turn so probably could have rushed through the End Phase to get another round, since I was narrowly losing on points and had the upper hand in the next round.

17 minutes ago, Flurpy said:

I lost a game because we spent the last 30 seconds of time measuring if something was obstructed, it was the last shot and I already had my dials ready for next turn so probably could have rushed through the End Phase to get another round, since I was narrowly losing on points and had the upper hand in the next round.

Assuming you knew the time constraints, just stipulate whichever (obstructed or not) is less favorable for you, just to move on.