If i understand correctly with rebel Nym's ability, you have to decide if you let a bomb detonate or not before measuring it's range with surrounding ships. Am i correct? Now what happens in this situation:

I play with Nym and i have 2 bomblets on the field. One is closer to my side of the playmat and the other one is closer to my opponent. Before i decide which bomb i want to detonate, my opponent measure the range between the bombs and his ships. I didnt see what range he had when he measured the one farthest from me. For that reason i measure the range for that bomb before i make my decision. When the time comes i announce that i keep that one intact and just let the one closest to me detonate.

My opponent says i have to detonate both bombs because i measured range. On my side my argument is that he did something when it was not the time to do it and got an information he should not have. I believe i should be allowed to have access to this information as well. Had he not measured the range prior to my decision, i wouldnt have done it either.

How would you rule this? Would you allow me to keep the bomb from detonating?

Without digging for the rules, I'd say that no one should have measured anything. Just pick one bomblet and hope for the best.

But like I'm fond of saying, I play casual and don't get all uppity over rules lawyering.

yes, you pick before measuring.

your opponent should not measure anything of yours unless you ask him to.

If it was tournament I would get a judge involved, if casual just roll a die to decide if it goes off or not.

That seems strange to me that your opponent would measure range to the bomb, and then penalize you and tell you that you have to do X because you measured range. That's kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

49 minutes ago, WhisperEcho said:

yes, you pick before measuring.

your opponent should not measure anything of yours unless you ask him to.

If it was tournament I would get a judge involved, if casual just roll a die to decide if it goes off or not.

It was a casual game but the guy i was playing against tend to become "intense" when a disagreement is involved. I kinda want to know for next time... For me a similar example would be: Your opponent measure the range between 2 ships when it's not the time to do it. If you did not see what result he got (because he was too fast and/or too far), arent you allowed to have access to the same information he has (by measuring it or asking him to do it again so you can see?)

In the case of the bomb, the information could be quite useful. If i decide to not detonate it, he as a pretty good idea of what he needs to do next round to get out of range.

Measurement comes after the bomb begins to detonate; you don't get to measure until after you choose whether or not to hold the bomb, and obviously, if you do, you don't get to measure at all. And conversely, if you start measuring, you've already, by implication, decided not to hold that bomb.

But he shouldn't have jumped the gun either.

He cheated to get that information; that's a harsh word sure as I'm fairly certain that it was unintentional in this scenario, but i say it because it is a circumstance that is outside of the rules and therefor lacks a provision to address it. In casual play you would have to settle it yourselves amicably however he acted to gain information he wasn't entitled to and therefor should share it. If I were judge I'd allow you to gain that same information based upon this from the FAQ.

"If derived information is dependent on a player’s previous decision or action, he or she must answer truthfully when asked about that decision or action" granted the purpose of this would be something like hey did you use your counter measures? so i can decide if i want to shot a ship or some other ship. However in the spirit of this, you have information that I don't have. Had you gained it legally I would be entitled to that information as well; because you gained it illegally you should not benefit from being able to conceal it as well. If you break down that sentence a bit, the "previous decision or action" well his previous action was to measure it; it was illegal to do it but he did it. The derived information of how far that bomb is, is dependent upon the other player having acted to gain that knowledge he or she must answer truthfully about that decision or action. It would be no different than if somebody measured for a target lock to quick for you to make notice you could demand to know the range of their checking because that information could be derived from that legally obtained measurement.

Yeah. He definitely shouldn't have measured anything. And you shouldn't have either.

I think it would have been best to ask your opponent why they were measuring before you did any yourself. This way you would have better established when you were going to allow measuring going forward

page 6 of the FAQ, "Open, Derived, and Hidden Information"

"All players are entitled access to open information and cannot hide open information from an opponent or omit specific details. A player must allow his or her opponent to discover the information themselves if they attempt to do so." (emphasis added)

Now, your opponent was not allowed to measure at that time. But since they did, they must allow you to obtain the same information. If I was a judge called to this table, I would give a Warning to the player who measured out of turn, then make official measurements for both players to share the same knowledge (or allow the un-Warned player to measure on their own if they prefer). After both players have the same illegal information, the game can proceed.

The Warning is to keep this from becoming an "Oh, I can get illegal info as long as I share" tactic. I track Warnings over the course of the day. Multiple Warnings lead to more severe penalties.

18 hours ago, Thormind said:

It was a casual game

Surely that's a good reason not to cheat, not an excuse for cheating?

On 9/29/2017 at 9:38 AM, Juunon said:

That seems strange to me that your opponent would measure range to the bomb, and then penalize you and tell you that you have to do X because you measured range. That's kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

On 9/29/2017 at 9:43 AM, Thormind said:

It was a casual game but the guy i was playing against tend to become "intense" when a disagreement is involved. I kinda want to know for next time... For me a similar example would be: Your opponent measure the range between 2 ships when it's not the time to do it. If you did not see what result he got (because he was too fast and/or too far), arent you allowed to have access to the same information he has (by measuring it or asking him to do it again so you can see?)

In the case of the bomb, the information could be quite useful. If i decide to not detonate it, he as a pretty good idea of what he needs to do next round to get out of range.

If your opponent "measured" then you should have full access to that same information.

Personally, I hate X-Wing's militant anti-measuring stance for completely public information. I can see why it maybe shouldn't be allowed because it could easily turn into a somewhat legal delaying/slow play tactic. It's all public information but "getting very specific" is telegraphing your intentions.

On 9/30/2017 at 1:00 PM, StevenO said:

If your opponent "measured" then you should have full access to that same information.

Personally, I hate X-Wing's militant anti-measuring stance for completely public information. I can see why it maybe shouldn't be allowed because it could easily turn into a somewhat legal delaying/slow play tactic. It's all public information but "getting very specific" is telegraphing your intentions.

When this was a game all about firing arcs and dodging (so before wave 5 and before your play group discovered fat Han) it made sense, measuring at every opportunity let you barrel roll out of range, or know if you're in range one you maybe evade instead of target lock or whatever. Now in this era of unavoidable damage and stacks on stacks of modifiers we're so far from the platonic ideal of x wing that I agree. We're not really playing this as the game labeled on the box. This game needs either a 2.0 or an overhaul of the rules to accommodate the state of the game.