Jump to content

Capt Chunk

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capt Chunk

  1. This is a lot of great insight and I appreciate all the comments. I completely understand that once something physically happens in the game and new info is revealed the game state has changed and you can't make changes. I would really like a clearer picture of action windows in the game for cases like this. I guess that's why in the title I ask, if words matter? In a competitive environment with ships with highly technical abilities it makes a huge difference. Is it "when one window closes another opens" in a clear sequence or do we like to enjoy the cross ventilation of having all the windows open? Is the answer simply if range ruler is not put on the table a target is not declared? If a dial has not flipped a ship is not active? In this case it's when does a cloaking window close and when does a ships attack start? Player A had the opportunity to cloak and was not rushed in anyway as his other ship was the next to attack. He stated clearly that his next ship was attacking, you get into the grey as the opposing ship was the only target and almost touching in arch. There would never reasonably be a reason to name the ship or measure. Does the selection of an attacker and the statement to attack with all that comes with that constitute a change of action window and therefore a missed opportunity? Or because everything was clear and understood the change in action window would not have occurred until his attack dice hit the table? Which brings up another question of knit-picking, whether you have one understood target alone or many targets with one logical choice. If the attacker declares who is attacking but not the target of said attack, did the attack happen? Who determines the target of an undeclared attack? (and a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it.)
  2. Player A had not said who he was attacking. He simply had said it's my next ships turn to attack. No range had been measured, no arcs had been checked, and no dice had been rolled. It was ruled as though a player had said he was going to focus, and then changed his mind and said he was going to evade, before putting any tokens onto the board. The question really came down to is verbal binding? Or, is an action binding? Had Player A done anything other than simply stated it was his next ships turn to shoot, the TO would have ruled that the opportunity was missed. The Focus, no wait I'll Evade standard was used. Is that a fair standard? The question this raises is how binding is a verbal statement? Changing your decision on what action to do is still within that ships actions action window. The issue here was that the player had moved on and began an attack with a totally seperate ship.
  3. We had a situation arise today in a competitive event that I would like to get an official ruling on if possible. It involves the timing of action windows and a players verbal statements during competitive play. This is specifically for competitive play at the top tables a major event, not casual games. 4 ships were involved, Player A had 2 high PS ships, one of which being a phantom with advanced cloaking device. Player B had 2 low PS ships. Player A’s phantom shot and hit, but did not cloak using ACD. Player A then declared that they were attacking with their next ship. Players A's second ship only had one possible target at range 1 and Player B’s second ship was well outside range 3, allowing for only one possible target. Just before rolling dice for the second ship Player A remembered that they had not cloaked and attempted to do so. Player B objected stating that the action window had passed to cloak when they declared the next ships attack. At this time the TO was called as the cloaking would prevent the almost assured destruction of the phantom with only 2 hull remaining and all but end the game for player A. The controversy came from defining the action window and intent of the player based on their statements in game play. Player B contested that the Player A had the opportunity to cloak during that ships attack phase and when Player A declared the attack of their next ship the opportunity to cloak had passed. The TO stated that his belief was that the game state had not changed and therefore the Player A could in fact cloak. Player B contested that the Statement of intent to attack closed the action window on the phantoms turn and open the action window for the second ship thereby not allowing the cloak. The TO's call stood and Player A ended up winning the game with the Phantom alone 5 turns later. So the question is, when does and action window close. When the player states that the next ship is attacking or when dice hit the table? Do words matter in X-wing or just actions? For reference In the Tourney rules it states Missed Opportunities Players are expected to play optimally, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he or she cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his or her opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity. Advanced Cloaking Device After you perform an attack, you may perform a free cloak action.
×
×
  • Create New...