1 hour ago, DTDanix said:

@Tvboy Are you saying you think that in my hypothetical buzz droid example that it is okay for me to deny the player's buzz droid effect as a missed opportunity and the opposing player should accept that?

In your specific example no, because it reads to me that the opponent of the buzz droid player was trying to rush through to the next phase and the very next thing the opponent says was "but mah buzz droids" (even if there was a delay and they are holding their dials at this point). Even if they said "ok" before picking up their dials, I think if the buzz droids was the last thing to happen before the planning phase, there would be a reasonable argument that the droid player did not miss their opportunity *if* they catch it before dials are revealed and new information has been gained. However if the buzz droid player doesn't declare the damage from their droids, I don't think it's right for a judge to step in and remind that player. That's what I'm talking about, I don't like that judges are compelled to actively intervene during games and change the outcome, unless the event is going to make sure that every table is being constantly monitored by a judge or authorized third party. Why does table 1 have the luxury of not having to remember their triggers because they get to have a judge and/or spectators calling judges nearby watching and stopping the game to point things out, but tables 6-20 don't?

I was just listening to the FFG stream from today and something Max Brooke said I guess kinda renders all this moot. Around the 31:00 mark he said of not using Zizi's ability after defending, "well it's optional right? so it's just a missed opportunity."

Eh, kind of the nail in the coffin there for my cause when the lead developer is implying "not optional = not missed opportunity". C'est La Guerre.

Zizi's ability is optional...

5 minutes ago, DTDanix said:

Zizi's ability is optional...

That was their point. It only counts as a missed opportunity if the ability is a "may" (optional). Mandatory abilities require a roll back.

Ah, I think I just misread.

It's very clear from Section 2 of the FFG Floor Rules that judges should ensure that correct game state is maintained and all mandatory effects observed, and that they have the power to do so, including rolling the game state back if necessary and if it is practicable to do so.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing because it's quite long, but here's paragraph 2 from section 2.1:

Quote

The potential for one player or the other to gain advantage by overlooking a step or mandatory occurrence is very real, which is why these disruptions are taken seriously. Even if a player did not intend to overlook a rule, they could still benefit enough to turn the game in their favor. Thus, it is imperative that these disruptions be dealt with in order to restore the integrity of the game. To do this, Judges are encouraged to use one of three main resolutions: play on, resolve now, or rewind.

This quite explicitly states that overlooking a mandatory occurrence is a serious disruption, and that it is imperative that judges deal with such errors because they threaten the integrity of the game. Judges who intervene when a mandatory trigger is missed are doing what they're supposed to do. The players are still very much "responsible", as they can be penalised for such errors, especially major or repeated errors. You could say that part of the judge's role is to hold them responsible.

The X-Wing Tournament Regulations also state that "When a judge is observing a game or an issue is brought to the judge’s attention, the judge should inform players when they are not following the game rules." (p 2 in the text version, under "Judge") Failing to perform a mandatory effect is not following the game rules, therefore judges can and should intervene.

7 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

That was their point. It only counts as a missed opportunity if the ability is a "may" (optional). Mandatory abilities require a roll back.

I would love a reference of where it actually says this.

1 minute ago, Lyianx said:

I would love a reference of where it actually says this.

8 hours ago, Tvboy said:

I was just listening to the FFG stream from today and something Max Brooke said I guess kinda renders all this moot. Around the 31:00 mark he said of not using Zizi's ability after defending, "well it's optional right? so it's just a missed opportunity."

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

I would love a reference of where it actually says this.

On page 2 of the rules references. Under Card Interpretation, Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”

Quote

The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory , the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect.

And again, in the Floor Rules, the entirety of section 2.

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

I would love a reference of where it actually says this.

... It's literally the post above you?

8 hours ago, Ysenhal said:

It's very clear from Section 2 of the FFG Floor Rules that judges should ensure that correct game state is maintained and all mandatory effects observed, and that they have the power to do so, including rolling the game state back if necessary and if it is practicable to do so.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing because it's quite long, but here's paragraph 2 from section 2.1:

This quite explicitly states that overlooking a mandatory occurrence is a serious disruption, and that it is imperative that judges deal with such errors because they threaten the integrity of the game. Judges who intervene when a mandatory trigger is missed are doing what they're supposed to do. The players are still very much "responsible", as they can be penalised for such errors, especially major or repeated errors. You could say that part of the judge's role is to hold them responsible.

The X-Wing Tournament Regulations also state that "When a judge is observing a game or an issue is brought to the judge’s attention, the judge should inform players when they are not following the game rules." (p 2 in the text version, under "Judge") Failing to perform a mandatory effect is not following the game rules, therefore judges can and should intervene.

The Judge is supposed to inform players when they are not following the rules. Missing mandatory triggers constitutes not following the rules. Therefore, the judge should inform players of missed mandatory triggers. They should not, however, mention optional triggers (Zizi, Kaz's Fireball title, etc.), except perhaps in the most casual tournaments, and then only with both player's consent.

2 hours ago, Something Wicked said:

On page 2 of the rules references. Under Card Interpretation, Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”

And again, in the Floor Rules, the entirety of section 2.

You are not answering my question, even though you believe you are. You are only using interpretations and passing it off as written plainly, when it actually isn't.

What you just quoted, only says what a mandatory ability is. Which is fine.

What the missed opportunities section says, " It is each player’s responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. " However nowhere, in either section says that Missed Opportunities can only apply to non-mandatory effects . Or that Mandatory effects do not fall under the Missed Opportunities rule. All of you are merely inferring that is the case.

To be totally fair, I'm not saying i do not agree with that assessment, I'm just saying it doesn't not seem to be written anywhere as an Official ruling, only that its a players responsibility.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

only that its a players responsibility

But that's where you're wrong. "It's" (= maintaining proper game state is) both player's responsibility, and as such both have to ask the other to consent to a rollback. That is only the case for mandatory effects. And as such missed opportunities logically can only apply to non-mandatory effects.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

But that's where you're wrong. It's both player's responsibility, and as such both have to ask the other to consent to a rollback. That is only the case for mandatory effects. And as such missed opportunities logically can only apply to non-mandatory effects.

That statement is contradictory. So its only the case for mandatory effect, but only applies to non-mandatory effects.. Your statement makes no sense.

Quote

It is each player’s responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged.

..ensure that all mandatory abilities

..each player’s responsibility

..each player’s responsibility

I dont see them as mutually exclusive as everyone else seems to. Typically, text connected by a comma "," are connected to each other and not independent statements. So the above line says two things.

1. It is each player’s responsibility to maintain a proper game state

2. It is each player’s responsibility to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged.

If mandatory abilities do not qualify as Missed Opportunities, then why is that section specifically calling them out, and stating that its each players responsibility to ensure they are acknowledged? To me, that says that mandatory abilities *can* be missed opportunities, and its no non-player's place to call out that its been missed, anymore than calling out that someone for got they could reroll from Fire-Control System.

At least, that's what the Rules would have us believe... as they are currently written.

56 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

That statement is contradictory. So its only the case for mandatory effect, but only applies to non-mandatory effects.. Your statement makes no sense.

Try to figure it out

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

If mandatory abilities do not qualify as Missed Opportunities, then why is that section specifically calling them out, and stating that its each players responsibility to ensure they are acknowledged? To me, that says that mandatory abilities *can* be missed opportunities, and its no non-player's place to call out that its been missed, anymore than calling out that someone for got they could reroll from Fire-Control System.

So in your perception, a player can "forget" about a console fire or loose stabilizer crit on their ships and then refuse to rollback and apply the effects of that crit when called on it?

9 hours ago, Tvboy said:

I might be misunderstanding, but sounds like you are saying a player should be punished or corrected for not consenting to something. That's not how consent works.

i'm not saying anyone should be punished or corrected in general. i am saying that everyone not maintaining a correct game state should be corrected, though. they will not always consent, even when corrected by a marshal. they should still be corrected, though.

14 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Except, Judges, nor spectators are playing the game. And in the strictest definition,

Responsibility: the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.

To me, this means its a players responsibility to remember triggers, abilities, and effects, and No one else's. And if they do forget, it is on them. If outsiders (people other than the two players) are permitted to call out missed events, where does it stop? Are they allowed to call out "you may" triggers? Why or why not? Where is the line between letting the players play, and interrupting to make sure they don't miss anything? I always thought that, it being the players responsibility meant forgetting or remembering abilities is part of the game, and if you make it harder for yourself by loading your ships down with tons of abilities, its not up to outsiders to remind you that you have them. Its on you!

I'm just confused on where everyone things "the line" is here.

of course. "the line", as you put it, is not just every player being responsible for maintaining a correct game state, though. it's both players responsibility, individually and collectively. you are playing a game. together.

mandatory effects is the topic here. optional abilities are a whole different matter.

2 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

So in your perception, a player can "forget" about a console fire or loose stabilizer crit on their ships and then refuse to rollback and apply the effects of that crit when called on it?

1. The reason crit tokens exists (That nobody seems to use) is to help them & their opponent, to remember that ship has a crit effect.

2. If the affected player forgets, that player needs the consent of his opponent to 'roll it back' and in that situation, i don't see the opponent refusing to do that. But if they really want to, sure.

3. Both of those crits can have their effect applied retroactively without changing the game state negatively for the opponent. Its possible if it causes the destruction of the ship that it could disrupt the opponent plans, in which case, yeah, id kinda complain about doing it because it would be screwing me up, and had i known that should wouldn't have been around, i wouldn't have planed my maneuver accordingly, and instead planned it for another ship.

Bottom line, if it would impact the current game state, to roll back and retroactively do something, then the opponent should have every right to refuse to do it. According to the rules as written. Of course, most of us are not that strict with it, but we are talking about the letter of the rules here.

36 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

If the affected player forgets

That's what you don't understand. A game state violation affects both players. It's not one or the other. Both are responsible.

They both have to ask for the rollback as soon as either of them realizes, or they are breaking the rules. And they have to ask the other as soon as they are made aware of it. That is, as soon as player A says: "Hey, Soontir should have a focus" then player A has to ask player B to correct it. And player B, now made aware of the game state violation, has to ask player A to correct it.

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's what you don't understand. A game state violation affects both players. It's not one or the other. Both are responsible.

They both have to ask for the rollback as soon as either of them realizes, or they are breaking the rules. And they have to ask the other as soon as they are made aware of it. That is, as soon as player A says: "Hey, Soontir should have a focus" then player A has to ask player B to correct it. And player B, now made aware of the game state violation, has to ask player A to correct it.

You are turning this into an argument, and your snide little reactions tells me you're really not even taking what im saying seriously. So im just stopping here. It seems clear you are either not understanding what im pointing out, or you just dont care and you want to continue to drive your point of interpretation. I've been trying hard to not turn this into a fight, but you seem to keep wanting to push that button, so im done.

I think some folks are conflating mandatory effects with optional ones.

• If an optional ability is missed, like forgetting to trigger 0-0-0 at the start of engagement, that's is simply considered to be a missed opportunity, and the game continues forward, UNLESS the opponent is willing to roll back and allow it to retroactively happen. In this case, the rollback is entirely optional, and entirely the decision of the player who does not control the ability.
• If a mandatory ability or effect is missed, like forgetting about Soontir Fel's bullseye-focus, then it becomes a Game State issue, and needs to be corrected if possible. Sometimes this means rolling the game back to the point where the mistake was made, sometimes it means retroactively "fixing" the game state and assuming that everything previous to it would have happened the same. And sometimes, if you made a mistake that happened a full turn (or more) prior to the current game state, rolling things backwards becomes virtually impossible.

As @GreenDragoon has pointed out, a Game State violation is the responsibility of both players to correct, immediately, as best possible (involving a Judge/Marshall if there is any dispute in the matter). This is not optional, like a missed opportunity for a "may" ability. This is a requirement of the tournament rules: "It is each player's responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged."

6 hours ago, Lyianx said:

You are turning this into an argument, and your snide little reactions tells me you're really not even taking what im saying seriously. So im just stopping here. It seems clear you are either not understanding what im pointing out, or you just dont care and you want to continue to drive your point of interpretation. I've been trying hard to not turn this into a fight, but you seem to keep wanting to push that button, so im done.

There are two types of effects, mandatory and non-mandatory. We know that missed opportunities exist. And we also know that missed opportunities cannot logically apply to mandatory effects, as explained several times. As a result, only non-mandatory effects can ever be missed opportunities.

The irritating part, for me, is that you are trying quite hard to make the game worse. The rules are not some kind of sacred texts, and the intent of the designers is very clear.

12 hours ago, Lyianx said:

You are not answering my question, even though you believe you are. You are only using interpretations and passing it off as written plainly, when it actually isn't.

What you just quoted, only says what a mandatory ability is. Which is fine.

What the missed opportunities section says, " It is each player’s responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. " However nowhere, in either section says that Missed Opportunities can only apply to non-mandatory effects . Or that Mandatory effects do not fall under the Missed Opportunities rule. All of you are merely inferring that is the case.

To be totally fair, I'm not saying i do not agree with that assessment, I'm just saying it doesn't not seem to be written anywhere as an Official ruling, only that its a players responsibility.

Section 2.2 of the floor rules only says what a missed mandatory ability is. However, if you read s ection 2.1 it says that "A Gameplay Disruption occurs whenever a game step, sequence, or mandatory occurrence is
overlooked or performed erroneously" and goes on to explain that judges should resolve these situations, recommend methods for doing so, and state that "As a general rule, it is up to the Judge to decide what action is necessary to resolve an issue." The later section about mandatory abilities is giving a definition of a type of disruption which Judges might resolve.