Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole reason we're having this argument is because of the interpretations of actions. No one is debating about attacks because there's a dice roll involved. But free actions are being debated because there's nothing showing it on the board. All he's suggesting is something similar.

No, the conversation occasioned by nbperp's post from today that I quoted and asked a question on the original topic of this thread. Then Harpua chimed in, then normalview asked for a proposal.

I think this thread needs a FAQ entry added to its Poster's Guide.

A reasonable adjudication I would accept.
Yup.
So let's make them required for the sake of precision and uniformity with the rest of the game system.

Here's a follow up question I have that's similar but different.

What if the player wanted to outwit something that would be legal (figure not in starting area or in stealth), but didn't line up LOF right? This happens ALL the time. The player doesn't understand LOF angles. He puts metron so it's behind the direct diagonal from the figure in question. He can't draw LOF even though it's obviously what he was intending to do via the simultanous move & outwit action declares.

Would y'all still not allow him to take his move back? I have the feeling people's answers might be different, but they shouldn't be in theory.

I disagree and feel that this thread proves it.

The whole GenCon issue is this exact thing.

Page 7:
That rule is in print.

George held his opponent to this rule, and now his play is WRONGLY being labeled as dickery.
Did he place the token? Yeah, his move is done.

Ummm it sounds pretty clear, if you are talking about a tournement, a world tournement, and the finals of that tournament then you just have to expect this.
No one is going to hold your hand in that kind of invironment that's the whole point of puting th ebest against the best, to see who understand the game the best and can utilize it's mechanics to beat their opponent.

If you don't know simple things like first turn immuntiy, order of operations, and what is legal, then you should simply concider yourself lucky for getting as far as you did, and chalk it up as a learning experience.

If you require a less competative environment to play, then by all means play in one. But don't hol dit against your opponent for using the rules to beat you. Technicaly you beat yourself. And they are just pointing it out.

Live and learn.

well hot damn, it's even already in print and yet ppl are objecting.

A rule on takebacks is actually what I am proposing to be in the rulebooks.

Something like: once an action is resolved, you may not take it back.

Or something like: once a free action is declared, you may not take it back.

If we can have a standard on when an actual action is complete and whether you can still move someone somewhere else as long as the token hasn't been placed that would be good.

For example, I played in a tournament about a month ago and my opponent said that once I declare my non-free action, then I have to do it. But, what I am getting here is that I can still change it as long as I haven't put the token there. It's better to have an official rule on it, then people can just follow that rule instead of leaving it up to people's discretion.

edit: and by the way, if someone was to double-check with me if my action is done and wants me to put a token, then I would think twice about putting that token and consider that a warning coming from the other player that something is up.

That's what I was saying earlier.

I suspect that George's statement was doing just this. He wasn't going to just come out and say "You're about to regret doing that, so take it back." I think he was giving Alan a bit of a heads up without outright saying it.

In case anyone missed the article on the front page, here are George's own words on what happened:

Norm, thank you for your prompt response to my post. You are always the first to step up to the plate and field the tough questions, and IMO, that’s one of the main reasons that you get so much respect as an RA. For that type of accountability I commend you sir!

Please correct me if I am wrong as to the facts of what happened, admittedly, my understanding of what occurred is based mostly on Harpua’s rendition of what was said. However, “not telling an opponent that the action has consequences” is not what I am suggesting happened here. What I am referring to is an affirmative act by a player expressly requesting the opponent to confirm an action (or complete an action) when that player realizes that such confirmation (or completion) is going to result in their opponent making a mistake, and with the intention that their opponent complete that action (or confirm that action) so as to procure that mistake coming into play. That is what I am concerned about. One action is being silent, the other is performing a Jedi Mind Trick (for lack of a better word) on your opponent.

Sure it’s a fine like between what you’re saying and what I am saying Norm, but do you see the difference? There is a happy medium. You can simply say nothing, or seek clarification from your opponent if you’re unsure as to the completion of their action (or confirmation of what their action is). But to suggest that they do X to complete action Y when you know that action Y will result in a mistake that will cost them the game. To me, that’s tantamount to baiting or inducing your opponent into making a mistake.

Now just to be perfectly clear, I am not sure if that’s what happened here, and I was not present when the match went on. But I do think that this is a legitimate question to ask and address in light of the factual events presented by Harpua (and I sure hope I don’t get him in trouble for pointing this out; that is not my intent at all). I just want to look at the truth objectively and determine if something improper may have occurred. It very well may be that everything that went down is legit and I am looking at all of this the wrong way.

If George sits back and says nothing, or simply asks “is the move action completed with a token?” Then I think he’s okay. But to say “mark him with a token if you’re done with the move action.” And to turn around a second later and say “no you can’t move him, I am not letting you take that back,” (or something to that effect) REALLY sounds like George induced the action. Again, had George looked to the Referees and asked, “guys can he move Metron after he went on to another action?” That’s one thing, but according to Harpua, George’s exact words were "I'm not letting you take the action back. You put the guy there and tokened him. It's too late to take it back."

When you look at the totality of what occurred, it seems like perhaps there was some inducement or procurement by George to get Alan to place that token on Metron. Had the Judges intervened and said “Alan, you cannot outwit unless you complete your action of putting the token on Metron,” (before George said anything) it’s a completely different scenario, because they’re a neutral impartial party. But the opponent in the game is not, and any request for an action which could induce a player to do something that leads to a mistake or causes a mistake is inappropriate, at least in my rather insignificant opinion.


Completely agree 100% not to expect that. But certainly you can expect a suggestive and influence free game without your opponent telling you to do certain things to try to get you to make a mistake correct?

I stand corrected, although for all intended purposes it has the same effect as if he passed correct? Simply not taking an action with a character when you clearly have actions to give, is the same as passing, no? Forgive me if my semantics of the game are not up to par with Harpua-speak.


Agreed, but it’s not George’s place to point out such rule intricacies at the world championship level is it? It seems counter intuitive that if you’re doing something wrong, your opponent is the one suggesting to you that you do something to make it correct, at least at that level of competition. I apologize if this seems like I am pointing fingers, it’s just that this affirmative act by George of requesting that Alan put the token on Metron (ONLY to then use that moments later as the reason he cannot take the move back) is to me what is the improper activity that seems like inducement or baiting of a particular action.

And of course the move would have to be resolved before anything else as a matter of course within the rules of the game. But it’s a negative consequence that the game breaking mistake does not come into play, but for that move being completed.

I apologize for using the word shady, it has a very negative connotation. However, not giving your opponent information is one thing. It’s completely something different to tell your opponent to do something during a game, when your intention is that what you’re telling them to do, will lead to a mistake. It’s two completely different things.

Perhaps I am being harsh, you are right Alan did move on his own. I do not want to tar or take away from George’s accomplishments, and he has my congratulations on being the 2010 world champ! Honestly, well deserved.

However, George tried to cement that in stone, by asking him to place the token. And then turns around a few moments later and uses that token he got him to place by stating "I'm not letting you take the action back. You put the guy there and tokened him. It's too late to take it back."

George’s own post in the front page states:

“He did exactly what i thought was going to happen he moved metron up carrying Thing, and tried to outwit me.

Now to set the record straight Allan moved metron and Thing into space to outwit me and did not drop an action token. I said complete your first action before you begin another, place your action token then use outwit. I'm a competitor and he gave me an opportunity I would be stupid to refuse. I called first turn immunity, and would not let him take both those actions back.”

George knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to get Alan to place the token so he could use the “Gotcha” tactic on him. Admittedly it worked, but lets call a spade a spade. It is, what it is.

Again, not foreseeing something (like not stating something) is different than trying to get your opponent to do something with the intention that they make a mistake. Surely I would think that you would agree that procuring your opponent to make a mistake is not good sportsmanship for the game? Whether that is what happened here or not.

Good point.

I appreciate your toting the company like Harp, but I think George's intent was pretty clear now that he's posted this:

It sure doesn't sound like he was giving him a heads up.

And just to be fair. I don't think that what George did, would deserve anything more than a verbal warning from the Judges.

However, I do have some concern that the powers that be, don't outright recognize George's actions for what they are and what he essentially admits they were, a baiting tactic.

I understand the importance of presenting a unified front and supporting the new world champ and all that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that legitimate concerns be recognized when they arise.

*pats Silver Lantern on the head*

Such a cute little...

*looks Silver Lantern over*

...man...???

What's wrong with baiting? Are you saying you've never 'accidentally' left a character out of position to draw your opponent out?

George did absolutely nothing wrong. You may not personally care for the way he handled that opening move, but that's your own thing.

From reading that, my take is that George was just making sure there are no loopholes to what he is anticipating... making sure Alan places a token so Alan cannot then turn around and say, well I haven't placed the token yet so technically, that move action isn't complete.

It doesn't look like baiting to me... maybe George was playing it off as an innocent suggestion to put a token but still... to not know first round immunity in a world championship...

It does read like a "Gotcha" tactic but it doesn't look like asking to place the token had anything to do with baiting because Alan was already baited at that point.

A few weeks ago, in a sealed draft, I pulled Shazadam and Kid Zoom. I kept Shazadam and passed KZ.

I had 0 range, a heavy object, and no access to my HSS.

My opponent made the mistake of forgetting that I could throw the object right up his wazoo and left KZ where I could do just that.

It is not my responsibility to tell him not to make that mistake.

If I sent my Parademon out there as bait to lure KZ to attack him and be sitting where I can throw the object at him, it is also not my responsibility to inform him.

And what is wrong with trying to bait your opponent to do something in order to gain a tactical advantage?

Nothing improper occurred. It was quite the opposite in my opinion.

First of all, I most certainly did not say that those were his exact words. If you go back and reread that post, you were see where I very clearly stated that I was giving a dialog which captured the sense of what happened, but was not in any way an exact transcript. I said that because I knew that if I did not somebody would, well, do what you just did anyway.

Now, this notion about inducing a mistake is just ludicrous. See my example above. There's really no difference between what George did and doing any number of other things which are done frequently.
You know all those times your opponent does something and you say "Wow, I didn't see that coming." Well, your opponent did, and he's not a bad guy because he didn't tell you it was coming.

Apparently, you are unaware of nbperp's passive judging policy. Unless asked, the judges do not intervene.

There is actually no such thing as passing in this game, nor is there anything wrong with doing that which people call passing.

There is absolutely no requirement to use any of your actions, let alone anything saying that you must use as many as you possibly can.

It's not all that intricate.
Page 7:
But, yeah, if George desires that his opponent sticks to the rules, nobody is going to point it out but him, so it really IS his place to say something (or to call a judge over to say it).
There's nothing improper there.

I'm skipping the rest as it seems to be just reiterations of the same notion of inducement.