6 minutes ago, Elavion said:

That's my point. You shouldn't be "protecting the event" from things like that.

If anything, the correct course of action would be to have the following rule at future events:

"If a list containing ships capable of equipping any of the following upgrades:
-Servomotor S-Foils

-Pivot Wings

-Grappling Struts

-Integrated S-Foils

(...)

is submitted without them, the players are allowed to add them to their list during the event."

Pro-player approach over pro-arbitrary rules, people.

The rules aren't arbitrary man. They were there for a reason and a purpose. The 5 teams that decide the rules agreed to them. You create a rule set so that you specifically don't have to make judgement calls in the moment. Everyone knows how things will play out because it's all been decided ahead of time. That's a Pro-Player position because no player has to worry that some group of people will decide he can't do something. The players all know what the rules are ahead of time, none are decided in the moment. Deciding things in the moment as they come up would be FAR more arbitrary than deciding things ahead of time.

1 minute ago, Rinehart said:

The rules aren't arbitrary man. They were there for a reason and a purpose. The 5 teams that decide the rules agreed to them. You create a rule set so that you specifically don't have to make judgement calls in the moment. Everyone knows how things will play out because it's all been decided ahead of time. That's a Pro-Player position because no player has to worry that some group of people will decide he can't do something. The players all know what the rules are ahead of time, none are decided in the moment. Deciding things in the moment as they come up would be FAR more arbitrary than deciding things ahead of time.

You had a council of captains exactly for the purpose of making rulings not arbitrary, you just decided to not use it. Like it or not, your decision to not bring it up led to putting the team that pointed out the lack of s-foils in a bad light (and made a player play a suboptimal list with no fault of his own ).

Also, going back to your previous post, I belive you completely missed my point. "Missing s-foils" and "swapping one functional upgrade for another" are not the same issue, and I completely agree with not allowing a team to swap the talents- unlike in the case of S-Foils, there is a non-zero chance that it wasn't just a paperwork error.

55 minutes ago, SOTL said:

As much as X-Wing likes to think it has 'a great community' most of you are complete plums.

It does, it just tends to steer clear of this dumpster fire we have here.

1 hour ago, Elavion said:

You had a council of captains exactly for the purpose of making rulings not arbitrary, you just decided to not use it. Like it or not, your decision to not bring it up led to putting the team that pointed out the lack of s-foils in a bad light (and made a player play a suboptimal list with no fault of his own ).

Also, going back to your previous post, I belive you completely missed my point. "Missing s-foils" and "swapping one functional upgrade for another" are not the same issue, and I completely agree with not allowing a team to swap the talents- unlike in the case of S-Foils, there is a non-zero chance that it wasn't just a paperwork error.

It does, it just tends to steer clear of this dumpster fire we have here.

The fact that we had a council to make the rules makes them not arbitrary by definition. I think you need to reread the definition. My decision not to bring it up was the correct call here. The rules were agreed to by everyone and I wasn't going to ask for a special exception.

I've said all along that I agree that a missed configuration and a talent change are vastly different changes. But, a change is still a change no matter how minor it may appear.

I hope someday you run or plan an event and have to deal with rule exception after rule exception in the name of "arbitrary" rules. That kind of thing can snowball out of control. There is far less damage to players by just adhering to the rules as they are written.

On 1/18/2019 at 9:00 PM, Darth Meanie said:

Fly casual. Except don't fly casual. I don't know, be an ******* or something. . .

Fly casual does not mean you get to do whatever you want.

Fly legal, baby.

The video includes the explanation. There is no TO, the players via their team captains made the decision. The decision was applied evenly to all teams as there were multiple mistakes.

I play regularly with the Columbus team guys. Heck, I was one of the last minute practice games for one of them for the Outryder. And despite thinking of them all as good friends and great players, I must admit I'm a little disappointed. If there was a case of multiple versions of the configuration that a player could choose from, which could then be considered a meta decision, that would had to be submitted with your list to avoid a cheat move, yeah the ruling makes sense. But the configs for the ships was part of their core design, it's pretty stupid that the app for instance doesn't auto-populate those upgrades on. It would be like sitting down to a game with a write out that somehow listed your hull value as 1 for a ship. Because of the misprint do I have to play as though the ship had one hull? If I misspelled my name for whatever reason, do I have to be called by the misspelling, or am I even allowed to play because I'm technically not the player on the list? None of that makes any reasonable sense. Those are clerical error, not play error.

Part of the design of these ships was giving them these options as built in to correct for the balance the game was supposed to be created with in the new edition. For Force same they were considering 'fixes' in first. Saying you don't get to play with them because you didn't write it down is terrible sportsmanship and flies in the face of the design and statistics rules of the game in general, let alone reasonable doubt. It's a move of "WAAC" players at a premier/private event who thought it was a great idea to self govern the rules from the players side using captains as arbiters. I know those guys pretty well and I can see a few of them thinking it was a good idea and would gain them an edge. And of course I find it hilarious that multiple teams made the same mistake and the whole event is garbage data now. They weren't playing with finalized product as intended, how would you evaluate the data as anything but worthless? Unless you want to apply a skew that reflects some players were operating at a handicap of course.

If you wanted to self govern the rules where there was confusion, why didn't you use a game that you had designed yourself in the first place so there was never a primary source who wasn't present? If you're using another designer (s) game, to create a fair experience, you must install a ruling person who is capable of interpreting on behalf of the designer who is not present, and for the best experience of the players in creating a fair event. I would not have felt that was done and honestly, glad I wasn't on the team as I would have not participated in it on sportsmanship reasons. To my mind they didn't play X-wing that day, and none of the results have any relevance.

They'll dislike me for this, I can just see my inbox exploding, but then again when I quit a few years ago saying I'd wait for a second edition they thought I was a crazy idiot back then too so... Y'know. They didn't tell me about all this when they came back, not hard to imagine why. Why be excited to share news of not playing a game as intended.

On 1/19/2019 at 10:29 PM, ForceSensitive said:

I play regularly with the Columbus team guys. Heck, I was one of the last minute practice games for one of them for the Outryder. And despite thinking of them all as good friends and great players, I must admit I'm a little disappointed. If there was a case of multiple versions of the configuration that a player could choose from, which could then be considered a meta decision, that would had to be submitted with your list to avoid a cheat move, yeah the ruling makes sense. But the configs for the ships was part of their core design, it's pretty stupid that the app for instance doesn't auto-populate those upgrades on. It would be like sitting down to a game with a write out that somehow listed your hull value as 1 for a ship. Because of the misprint do I have to play as though the ship had one hull? If I misspelled my name for whatever reason, do I have to be called by the misspelling, or am I even allowed to play because I'm technically not the player on the list? None of that makes any reasonable sense. Those are clerical error, not play error.

Part of the design of these ships was giving them these options as built in to correct for the balance the game was supposed to be created with in the new edition. For Force same they were considering 'fixes' in first. Saying you don't get to play with them because you didn't write it down is terrible sportsmanship and flies in the face of the design and statistics rules of the game in general, let alone reasonable doubt. It's a move of "WAAC" players at a premier/private event who thought it was a great idea to self govern the rules from the players side using captains as arbiters. I know those guys pretty well and I can see a few of them thinking it was a good idea and would gain them an edge. And of course I find it hilarious that multiple teams made the same mistake and the whole event is garbage data now. They weren't playing with finalized product as intended, how would you evaluate the data as anything but worthless? Unless you want to apply a skew that reflects some players were operating at a handicap of course.

If you wanted to self govern the rules where there was confusion, why didn't you use a game that you had designed yourself in the first place so there was never a primary source who wasn't present? If you're using another designer (s) game, to create a fair experience, you must install a ruling person who is capable of interpreting on behalf of the designer who is not present, and for the best experience of the players in creating a fair event. I would not have felt that was done and honestly, glad I wasn't on the team as I would have not participated in it on sportsmanship reasons. To my mind they didn't play X-wing that day, and none of the results have any relevance.

They'll dislike me for this, I can just see my inbox exploding, but then again when I quit a few years ago saying I'd wait for a second edition they thought I was a crazy idiot back then too so... Y'know. They didn't tell me about all this when they came back, not hard to imagine why. Why be excited to share news of not playing a game as intended.

It's like you didn't read anything.

Your name being spelled wrong is not a problem. A misprint of a hull value from the squadbuilder wouldn't be a problem. Those are immaterial mistakes. The issue being discussed are list changes.

Everyone agrees that configurations are part of the ship. They are technically upgrades, but they are really part of the ship. They are only expressed as upgrades because the mechanism needs to have two conditions, which means two sides of a card. I get it. We all get it. Pittsburgh should have been able to play with the cards in most circumstances.

Pittsburgh didn't play with the cards because the Pittsburgh captain, ME, chose not to ask to be allowed to add them. No other captains or teams were even given the opportunity to make the decision. I didn't give them that opportunity because I felt it was better for the event not to open that pandora's box. That was solely my decision and no one else's.

Columbus had nothing to do with that decision, and you are completely out of line to accuse anyone on the Columbus team or any other team of cheating or trying to WAACs. Completely out of line.

Multiple teams did not make the same mistakes. One team said they made a mistake and wanted to change a talent. Another team, Pittsburgh, omitted the configurations on their ships in one list. This wasn't a systemic problem. One team wanted to make a change, and Pittsburgh made a mistake. You are simply drawing conclusions that have absolutely nothing to support them.

Pittsburgh chose the be sportsmen about the mistake and not put the other captains in an awkward position. It's that simple. No one tried to use Pittsburgh's mistake to their own advantage. I'll say it again, because I think it's very important. NO OTHER CAPTAINS WERE GIVEN THE CHOICE TO ALLOW PITTSBURGH TO USE THE CONFIGURATIONS. No one cheated, no one tried to screw anyone. Pittsburgh chose to eat it's own mistake. To us that felt like the correct decision, and it still does.

And again, I totally get that omitted configurations are an oversight that occur as a result of the squad builders. If you go to a System Open and forget to add them to your list, the TO will allow you to do it. They are there by implication. I get that, I think everyone does. Pittsburgh chose not to ask, to continue to cement the standard that had been set when the rules were written and when the other team asked to make a change. The rules said no, so Pittsburgh wanted to abide by that.

You can choose to live in your own reality and think the event that day had no relevance and that we didn't "play Xwing". But, that it a completely preposterous conclusion.

What I’m reading here is that people who know nothing and are making inferences based on at best hear-say evidence have caused a firestorm for no reason.

Ryan, you can’t argue with stupid my man. But thanks for trying to set the record straight on what was yet another awesome Outryder. Had a blast with everyone as usual.

This thing has gone far further than it needs to. Simply, rules exist for a reason. They remove subjectivity and protect both players and organizers. Outryder is a unique environment where lists get submitted and then published for all to see.

In that public window you digest what is out there and how to tackle it. In the case of the talent swap that 1 point could be the difference between having a bid or tying a bid over another list you are worried about. That information was all public when this went down.

Like Ryan said this was to protect both players and organizers and prevent a precedent. As a player in Outryder I completely support his decisions and would expect the same rules to have been appied to my team.

Consider the record straight. Some of my opinion is changed, but I'd still hold the event as bad data.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Consider the record straight. Some of my opinion is changed, but I'd still hold the event as bad data.

Ok cool

Hook em 🤘

Ok here is the full story!!!

As the guy who flew for the rebel swarm list for the Pittsburgh team (using, 2x xwings, 2x uwings), I submitted my list to my captain and he submitted it to the league. YASB 2.0 does not include them as a default (not a big deal). We submitted it and forgot.

Unfortunately after we found out it was after one team declared they submitted the wrong list (Blackout with composure instead of trickshot). They were denied the change cause it was after all list had been revealed. We decided not to ask about it since it there was a little tension over not allowing their change.

The only one I would have wanted was the uwing config. The xwing one is not my play style.

It wasn't a big deal I never used it to turn around since that is when someone would target them and take them off the board, so I learned as I practiced to fly past and coordinate.

All in all, I did well without them going 2-0 and I think I lost 2 ships for hyperspace play.

Edit: Whoops late to the party didn't see Rinehart's comments

It's not bad data because it's not your typical tournament data at all. You clearly don't understand what the event is about. Also to say you wouldn't have participated based on information after the fact is ignorant. What is also ignorant is that you've never been on an outryder team and are pretending to know how to go about governing the rules and and experience. The majority of the people participating in outryder didn't just "peace out" and wait for the game to fit their own ideals. They used it as a way to have fun and enjoy friendly competition with friends. Trust me when I say that you're inbox will not be exploding because no one has given you a second thought in years and it will continue this way. Welcome to the salt mines.

It is not a TO's job to determine if a submitted least makes sense, only that it is legal. Trying to do the former, only opens up a host of other problems. It's better for everyone, players included, if they double check their lists and play what was submitted. If an event hasn't started and player would like to request a change, that's up tot he TO and format to decide. If the event has already started and a player wants to play a list other than what was submitted , that's just illegal and shouldn't be allowed even if the change "seems" obvious on the surface.