[Edit: There were some unintended implications in my original post that I felt were distracting/unproductive, edits have been applied in bold and brackets.]

The rules for missed opportunities are:

Quote

Players are expected to follow the game’s rules, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. It is each player’s responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, that player cannot retroactively use it without the consent of their opponent.

Most people read the 2nd sentence and seem to interpret that as meaning that non-optional effects can and should be applied retroactively even when they are missed so as to "ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged". However, the following sentence explicitly forbids and retroactive application of effects that were not used during the correct timing window without the consent of the opponent, and importantly does not distinguish between optional and mandatory effects. To me that negates any interpretation that the preceding sentence somehow allows for retroactive application of missed effects against the consent of the opponent, similar in concept to how "can't" abilities always trump "can" abilities (not saying that rule applies here, just comparing that they use the same logic).

The "consent of their opponent" clause in there is very important because it creates a release valve for allowing players to make sure that their opponents aren't scummily rushing past their detrimental abilities and then try to claim that the timing window was missed so they don't have to suffer from it. The opponent can catch it and retroactively apply the effect as needed. Also it leaves the door open to the opponent if they want to play a more lenient relaxed game (though there's nothing stopping their opponent from backstabbing them when the shoe's on the other foot).

This thought came to me because there was a recent Gold Squadron stream from the Texas SOS where edit:[The commentator who was authorized by tournament officials to intervene in an incorrect game state] , informed by the audience chat, interrupted a game to inform a player after dice had been rolled that they had forgotten to apply their range 1 attack bonus, and this didn't feel right to me. His reasoning for doing this was that the range 1 bonus was a mandatory effect (which is actually debatable based on the rules reference, separate topic though) and therefore he was obligated to intervene to maintain a correct game state.

First I want to clarify that I'm not trying to throw shade at [ Dion or Gold Squadron or anyone who streams and provides live commentary or offers their time to judge at X-Wing tournaments , these are all good people acting in good faith and a huge asset to the x-wing community.] So don't go there.

Edit: I said some stuff here about streamed games and spectators that wasn't relevant to my original point and decided to remove it.

And finally, the reason for this post, it feels like edit: [a judge/official] allowing a player to retroactively apply an effect that was missed, and even actively reminding players of those missed effects, without the consent of their opponent is going against the word of the missed opportunity rule and also undermines the idea behind that rule which is that knowing how your cards work and how to correctly use them at the correct time is a skill that should matter in a competitive setting.

Again, not an attack on [removed] anyone who has been applying the rules one way or another while acting in good faith, just throwing this out there for discussion. Would love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially if I'm way off base and missing something other than the 2nd sentence in the MO rule about ensuring all mandatory abilities are acknowledged.

I more or less agree.

1. Are range bonuses mandatory effect? Yes. Due to RR pg 5.

Quote

During an attack, a ship cannot choose to roll fewer dice than it is supposed to roll.

2. Can spectators call out missed opportunities? No, due to tournament rules on pg 3.

Quote

Note that a missed opportunity (see page 6) does not constitute a breach in the rules, and spectators should not comment on missed opportunities.

3. Are mandatory effects susceptible to missed opportunities? Yes.

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.

Bottom line, if the attacker did not think to add the range bonus die, and his opponent did not want to remind him to do so, then that opportunity is missed. By allowing outside interference, they effectively put a disadvantage to the defender by screwing with the game.

I dont know this Dion, but ill attack him for doing that. If pod casters, or whatever his is, doesnt know the rules well enough to keep his mouth shut and not interfere (much as they probably dont want to admit it, casters are Spectators too and are NOT judges).

1 minute ago, Lyianx said:

I dont know this Dion, but ill attack him for doing that. If pod casters, or whatever his is, doesnt know the rules well enough to keep his mouth shut and not interfere (much as they probably dont want to admit it, casters are Spectators too and are NOT judges).

Dion is the head of Gold Squadron Podcast. Understand that what you're outlining is actually a judge's call (roll back or play on being the options) which is supposed to result in a penalty for both players per the floor rules since they failed to maintain an accurate board state which includes Mandatory (anything that isn't a "may") effects...

13 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

I dont know this Dion, but ill attack him for doing that. If pod casters, or whatever his is, doesnt know the rules well enough to keep his mouth shut and not interfere (much as they probably dont want to admit it, casters are Spectators too and are NOT judges).

Please don't? We should be able to have a discussion about the rules and use specific examples without crucifying the people involved, especially when they are acting in good faith. Dion works his butt off and has contributed more to the X-Wing community than anyone I know. He deserves respect, as does everyone else. Your discussion is welcome, your ad hominem attacks are not. You should consider adjusting your tone.

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Dion is the head of Gold Squadron Podcast. Understand that what you're outlining is actually a judge's call (roll back or play on being the options) which is supposed to result in a penalty for both players per the floor rules since they failed to maintain an accurate board state which includes Mandatory (anything that isn't a "may") effects...

Which he should know that an Spectator informing him is breaking the rules of the game.

As long as he was judging, and not casting at the same time that is. Him being a judge is important, him being the head of a podcast, is not. Podcasters should have zero clout or pull when it comes to game judgments, and no Judge who is also a podcaster should be doing both at the same time. Its unclear from the OP if he was casting, or actively judging that game.

Its a judges job to enforce Game Rules . Given 'Missed Opportunities' has their own section of rulings, i do not see where its written that its a Judges place to enforce game states when it clearly states its the Players responsibility. Nowhere in that section of Missed Opportunities, is a judge mentioned to be involved. You might as well be saying its a judges job to remind players when specific abilities have hit their timing windows.

Finally, Range bonuses are one of the most basic things players know about and learn about. IF someone forgets to apply it, to their advantage, during a TOURNAMENT of all places, they don't deserve to be reminded of it, especially not from a judge to allow him to retroactively do so.

So sorry. This Dion may be a judge and the head of whatever, but hes still human, and he made a mistake here. Hes not above it.

Page 6, Section 2 of the floor rules regarding gameplay disruptions and resolutions, emphasis mine:

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.

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.

The resolve now solution is used when the overlooked rule or ability in question can still be retroactively applied without giving either player major advantage while not applying it will give one player advantage over the other .

The rewind solution is used when neither of the other two solutions can be used without giving one player significant advantage over the other. For this solution, players reverse their actions and “back up” the game to the point where the mistake was made, correct it, then continue on 7 from that point as normal. Please note that this solution can be very disruptive to the flow of the game and the tournament round, and therefore should only be used if neither of the other two solutions will work.

When a player does not roll enough attack dice, the defender was given a notable advantage.

From the rules reference about Range Bonuses

Quote

For attack range 0–1, the attacker rolls one additional attack die during the Roll Attack Dice step

There is no "may". It is not optional.

Additionally, just because Dion is live commentating a stream, that does not exclude him from also being an official judge in the tournament.

1 minute ago, Tvboy said:

Please don't? We should be able to have a discussion about the rules and use specific examples without crucifying the people involved, especially when they are acting in good faith. Dion works his butt off and has contributed more to the X-Wing community than anyone I know. He deserves respect, as does everyone else. Your discussion is welcome, your ad hominem attacks are not. You should consider adjusting your tone.

My big question here is, Was he judging the game, or was he podcasting at the time? If he was simply judging, then ill just chock it up to a TO making an error, which happens all the time.

Its if he was podcasting and took it upon himself to interfere with the game, that i would take issue with.

8 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

My big question here is, Was he judging the game, or was he podcasting at the time? If he was simply judging, then ill just chock it up to a TO making an error, which happens all the time.

Its if he was podcasting and took it upon himself to interfere with the game, that i would take issue with.

This was just supposed to be an example of what I have noticed is a common take by many judges to that it's okay to remind players about effects if they are "mandatory", this is not about assigning blame to an individual for what happened in the past. Dion is not an trial here, the community's interpretation of the rules are. I could have used any number of other instances that I have witnessed as examples, this one just happened to occur on video.

I am now regretting using Dion's name, I was not expecting people to be this quick to resort to Outrage over something that didn't involve them and take up pitchforks.

29 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

3. Are mandatory effects susceptible to missed opportunities? Yes.

Mandatory effects must be resolved. That is literally the definition of the word "mandatory".

15 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

This was just supposed to be an example of what I have noticed is a common take by many judges to that it's okay to remind players about effects if they are "mandatory", this is not about assigning blame to an individual for what happened in the past. Dion is not an trial here, the community's interpretation of the rules are. I could have used any number of other instances that I have witnessed as examples, this one just happened to occur on video.

I am now regretting using Dion's name, I was not expecting people to be this quick to resort to Outrage over something that didn't involve them and take up pitchforks.

Apologizes. This post happened fairly shortly after another question about Podcaster interference was posted, and i assumed it was a similar situation.

22 minutes ago, Something Wicked said:

Additionally, just because Dion is live commentating a stream, that does not exclude him from also being an official judge in the tournament.

Maybe im alone on this, but i wouldnt want the TO of the event im in, to also be splitting his attention commentating a stream. In fact, id want him to not be talking and announcing everything of the game im playing in front of both me and my opponent.

Also, doing both kinda feels like a conflict of interest to me.

15 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Maybe im alone on this, but i wouldnt want the TO of the event im in, to also be splitting his attention commentating a stream. In fact, id want him to not be talking and announcing everything of the game im playing in front of both me and my opponent.

A judge isn't necessarily also the Tournament Organizer. And typically the stream station is set up away from the players, in part specifically so that the players cannot hear the commentary.

As far as not wanting someone splitting attention between commentating and paying attention to the game state, I get that. My own opinion is that commentating is not enough of a distraction to adversely affect judging.

I want to emphasize the original point of this question, instead of whether a streamer can/should also be a judge.

7 hours ago, Tvboy said:

If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, that player cannot retroactively use it without the consent of their opponent.

7 hours ago, Tvboy said:

To me that negates any interpretation that the preceding sentence somehow allows for retroactive application of missed effects against the consent of the opponent, similar in concept to how "can't" abilities always trump "can" abilities (not saying that rule applies here, just comparing that they use the same logic).

This line only specifies that a " player " cannot retroactively use an effect without the opponent's consent. It does not exclude a judge from resolving the situation.

Again referencing the Floor Rules document, page 3, section 1.1 The Role of a Judge:

Quote

If a Judge witnesses a mistake being performed by a player, they may approach the table and explain to the players the mistake that was made and then correct it accordingly.

While both players are responsible for maintaining a proper game state and making sure all mandatory abilities are acknowledged, players are not the only ones with this responsibility, and not the only ones with the power to resolve it.

The " It is each player’s responsibility" line is there, for example, to put the responsibility on a player to not do something like " scummily rushing past their detrimental abilities" and claiming it was fine because the opponent didn't catch it. Not to somehow make it so that missed mandatory effects or incorrect game states cannot be corrected.

nvm, you guys go and have fun in here. This is ridiculous, and somehow @Lyianx managed to make it worse

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

My big question here is, Was he judging the game, or was he podcasting at the time? If he was simply judging, then ill just chock it up to a TO making an error, which happens all the time.

I would like to point out that Dion has mentioned a few times at events where he is streaming for GSP he has been authorized by organizers to act as a judge for that game as he has a unique vantage point behind the cameras and is well versed in the general rules of the game. I don't know if that was explicitly the case at Texas SOS, but it seems to be common practice for this particular streamer.

GSP streaming table is also typically set up out of earshot from the table being streamed. And as far as splitting attention, I would say that a streamer watching one game and interacting with others also watching that game is going to be more focused than a standard judge who is milling around observing 40+ different games.

Assuming Dion was authorized to make rulings on that game: Chat people mentioning something to Dion who then corrects game state is analogous to a table side spectator whispering to a judge at the table who then corrects game state.

whether it was appropriate for Dion to interfere and remind the players of the incorrect game state is not something we even have the means to investigate - and for that reason it's inappropriate for us to discuss it.

i'm going with this sentence all the way, because it's well expressed, fair, reasonable and should in my opinion be central to the spirit of the game and how it should be played.

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.

maintaining a correct game state is not just each players responsibility, by it my opinion it's the most important responsibility you have as a player. it should be the number one priority for everyone playing the game.

then we have this line of text, which is of course necessary, but should still be seen in the light of the previous sentence.

Quote

If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, that player cannot retroactively use it without the consent of their opponent.

or in other words, if the player does not give consent to maintain a proper and correct game state, retroactively or currently, that player is not taking his or her responsibility to maintain a proper game state.

With that justification out of the way, back on topic!

I generally feel that the rules quoted by Something Wicked about gaining a notable advantage from missed opportunity is particularly prevalent:

2 hours ago, Something Wicked said:

Page 6, Section 2 of the floor rules regarding gameplay disruptions and resolutions, emphasis mine:

In line with that and in the interest of fairness I would prefer my opponent or a judge call out a missed mandatory effect on either side and rewind if it can be easily rewound. To not do so could be seen as encouraging sloppy play or enabling an unfair advantage. I don't want to win or lose because the wrong number of dice were rolled on turn 2.

I see that the letter of the law might appear to discourage this practice, but if both players agree to allow brief rollbacks when a missed mandatory mistake is immediately caught (as has always been the case in games I've played both casually and competitively) I don't see the problem with bending the missed opportunity rule and using the floor rule about judges witnessing a mistake to make corrections.

Generally I agree with Tvboy's last post:

1 hour ago, Something Wicked said:

While both players are responsible for maintaining a proper game state and making sure all mandatory abilities are acknowledged, players are not the only ones with this responsibility, and not the only ones with the power to resolve it.

The " It is each player’s responsibility" line is there, for example, to put the responsibility on a player to not do something like " scummily rushing past their detrimental abilities" and claiming it was fine because the opponent didn't catch it. Not to somehow make it so that missed mandatory effects or incorrect game states cannot be corrected.

For the Texas SOS Dion stated on stream he was given instructions to make judge calls to correct gamestate mistakes. This was requested by the event organizers, and that’s absolutely their discretion. Also stream playing is voluntary, if a player does not approve, he doesn’t have to play.

On other streams, he has stated he has been given observer only status. Of course, he sticks to this 100 percent.

The thing I am most worried about in these kinds of discussions is making the game into something where conveniently forgetting everything negative to you is to your benefit.

This can effectively encourage players to keep incorrect game state or try to skip over things for the other player. And it can all be hidden as a "oops, I forgot" or "oops, we both forgot" type of thing.

Let's take this hypothetical example:

My ship has a buzz droid on it. I finish up shooting with the last ship and pause a bit then say "That looks like everything, back to dials." We pick up our dials and start deciding the next moves. Just after we put down dials and are saying "all set?", my opponent says "Oh, the buzz droid!"

The buzz droid effect is mandatory, and engaging is mandatory. What I've said as a player is easily excusable/reasonable behavior. At this point, rewinding to deal the crit isn't going to break game state or change anything as long as you can reset your dials if the crit matters. I would hope most everyone would be like "Oh yea, let's fix that real quick." Obviously if it is harder to rewind game state, it's time to call a judge. But many game mistakes are solved without judge interference.

If I am able to argue "missed opportunity" here and skip the opponent's mandatory ability, then I think we're in a really bad place. This will encourage players who want every possible advantage to try to skip every little thing possible. Not every player is going to have the confidence to call a judge over and make sure this gets noted to catch someone doing this continuously and maliciously throughout a tournament.

My conclusion: All mandatory effects are required and the standard response should be to fix it as much as possible even if the timing window passed. If significant game state change has occurred, then call a judge. Guidance for judges should probably be "Fix if it is reasonable, otherwise too bad. Make note of players involved to see if this crops up more in the tournament."

2 hours ago, DTDanix said:

The thing I am most worried about in these kinds of discussions is making the game into something where conveniently forgetting everything negative to you is to your benefit."

This is covered in the clause about it not being missed if the opponent consents to it. So if you miss your negative trigger and your opponent catches it later, they can ask for it to be applied retroactively. The same can be done for positive triggers as well if the opponent wants to be lenient, but I'm pretty sure "unless the opponent consents to it" is in there to prevent this type of problem. And if a player shows a pattern of missing their own negative triggers, especially the same ones on the same day, that should be an investigation for cheating anyway.

3 hours ago, meffo said:

or in other words, if the player does not give consent to maintain a proper and correct game state, retroactively or currently, that player is not taking his or her responsibility to maintain a proper game state.

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.

4 hours ago, Something Wicked said:

I want to emphasize the original point of this question, over whether a streamer can/should also be a judge.

That is not even close to the original point of my post at least, but maybe you're referring to something else and didn't quote it in your post.

Again this is about application of tournament rules going forward, I'm not interested in crucifying people for how they have applied the rules in the past. IMO players shouldn't be punished for not keeping perfect track of effects that are happening 4 feet away from them on their opponent's side of the table so long as they are keeping track of their own effects, but should have the right and the sole discretion to allow an opponent to apply an effect retroactively, which the tournament rules support as written. I personally am constantly reminding my opponents of their triggers and abilities because that's the kind of game I like to play, but I wouldn't like it if a third party was making that call.

3 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

For the Texas SOS Dion stated on stream he was given instructions to make judge calls to correct gamestate mistakes. This was requested by the event organizers, and that’s absolutely their discretion. Also stream playing is voluntary, if a player does not approve, he doesn’t have to play.

On other streams, he has stated he has been given observer only status. Of course, he sticks to this 100 percent.

Thank you for noting this, as I said Dion was acting fully within the scope of what was requested of him by the tournament officials, who were applying the "missed opportunity" rules in a specific way based on an interpretation that an official can intervene in a game if they see a "mandatory" effect being missed.

I was trying to call out that interpretation of the rules and discuss if it is correct. I probably need to edit out some of the stuff I said about streamed games, I think that distracted from my main point.

8 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

5 hours ago, Something Wicked said:

I want to emphasize the original point of this question, over whether a streamer can/should also be a judge.

That is not even close to the original point of my post at least, but maybe you're referring to something else and didn't quote it in your post.

Edited my post to say "instead of" the streamer/judge issue. I was trying to focus on the "should a judge intervene for a missed mandatory effect" question.

A missed mandatory effect is not the same thing as a missed opportunity. Mandatory effects must happen. A judge can and should correct players when a mandatory effect has been missed. If nothing else, the floor rules make this clear.

1 minute ago, Tvboy said:

Thank you for noting this, as I said Dion was acting fully within the scope of what was requested of him by the tournament officials, who were applying the "missed opportunity" rules in a specific way based on an interpretation that an official can intervene in a game if they see a "mandatory" effect being missed.

I was trying to call out that interpretation of the rules and discuss if it is correct. I probably need to edit out some of the stuff I said about streamed games, I think that distracted from my main point.

Yeah, I was not thinking of you when I wrote my response. Your OP was written fine, no worries.

On another note, I do fall on the side of the sanctity of the game state being preserved if at all able. Rewind, roll that extra dice, engage with that forgotten ship, etc. However, I did enjoy pondering your question. 🤔

I’m a hyper competitive player (no pun, and doesn’t mean I’m good either). I try to very mentally prepare myself ahead of time to just relax. My FAVORITE thing, ABSOLUTE FAVORITE thing to see on stream is a player reminding his opponent of his VOLUNTARY triggers, even in a close game.

I so respect that, that I’ve begun trying to do the same, even tho it runs counter to my hyper-competitiveness. 🤗 🤗

I’ve enjoyed the game much more since.

6 minutes ago, Something Wicked said:

Edited my post to say "instead of" the streamer/judge issue. I was trying to focus on the "should a judge intervene for a missed mandatory effect" question.

A missed mandatory effect is not the same thing as a missed opportunity. Mandatory effects must happen. A judge can and should correct players when a mandatory effect has been missed. If nothing else, the floor rules make this clear.

Thanks, sorry for jumping on you for that.

I will have to take a look at the floor rules, because the missed opportunity rules, specifically the sentence which I highlighted in red, don't distinguish between whether an effect is mandatory or optional, and the rules reference uses the term "effect" to encompass both abilities and game effects. If you have a specific passage in mind let me know, but I'll try to find it on my own later today. The point I was trying to make in the first part of my OP was that the sentence in red from the MO rules seems to override the previous sentence that mandatory effects must be observed to the point of applying them retroactively, basically saying "you must observe mandatory effects, but only if it's within their specified timing window unless the opponent consents to applying them retroactively".

3 hours ago, meffo said:

maintaining a correct game state is not just each players responsibility, by it my opinion it's the most important responsibility you have as a player. it should be the number one priority for everyone playing the game.

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.

5 hours ago, Something Wicked said:

The " It is each player’s responsibility" line is there, for example, to put the responsibility on a player to not do something like " scummily rushing past their detrimental abilities" and claiming it was fine because the opponent didn't catch it. Not to somehow make it so that missed mandatory effects or incorrect game states cannot be corrected.

That particular situation actually bumps into the last part of the missed opportunities rule.

Quote

Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity.

So yeah, if your opponent is rushing you, thats one thing. But in this example, he was rolling attack dice. I'm not sure how an opponent can 'rush' someone though gathering dices and forcing them to roll them, unless they activly shove the dice in their hands or whatever.

5 minutes ago, Something Wicked said:

Edited my post to say "instead of" the streamer/judge issue. I was trying to focus on the "should a judge intervene for a missed mandatory effect" question.

A missed mandatory effect is not the same thing as a missed opportunity. Mandatory effects must happen. A judge can and should correct players when a mandatory effect has been missed. If nothing else, the floor rules make this clear.

Isn't it though? How far do you roll a game back to ensure mandatory effects happen? I dont see it having any further reach than non-mandatory effects. If trying to roll back the game, to enforce an effect would alter decisions that were made After that effect would happen, then IMO, that moment has past, and cannot be undone. I dont know how far past the die rolling this specific event happened, but i DO know stream chat lag is a thing, and the delay from the chat saying something, to the streamer seeing it, to the streamer telling a judge, to the judge talking with the players, wouldn't be insignificant.

Like i said, im just confused on where everyone draws the line, and why they draw it there, and where in the rules backs up the position of that line. But i can guess everyones reply would likely be "its up to the judge", which is a vague answer.

@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?