1.2.13 Information: All information part of a HeroClix tournament once it begins is public information, expect information on any dial not visible in the current slot, and any information specifically indicated as non-public by game rules, tournament rules, or in-game abilities. Spectators or players who are not involved in a match do not have a right to public information about it.

A player must let the opposing player see what is currently displayed on the dial if asked.

I am referring to the outwit not being legal due to the first turn immunity. He made the move action (which was legal) with the intent to outwit (that wasn't legal) his Shazam.

Asking to see what is currently displayed on the dial and asking if a specific power is there may not be the same thing. If not, player 2 could answer "look for yourself."

Your point? Either way, you'd either be told/see a gray square on if TK was present.

My guess is that this has become a never ending argument about "the right thing to do" versus "what the rules say". I am never going to be able to see the other sides point of view on this one.

Worlds is the single most Elite event in Heroclix. The caliber of players making the Final day is astounding (especially this year). I would expect each person to play at the same elite level as the tourney. This means when your opponent makes a mistake, you don't say "Go ahead, redo anything that you mess up on the first try".

And some folks seem to feel that asking Alan to finish the move while thinking that the outwit was legal is wrong somehow. But hwo you cross that line without sipping the "playing for your opponent" kool-aid is a bit of a stretch to me.

You can say you'd have done things differently. You certainly have that option. But I fail to see how our winner did anything wrong by not doing so.

Answering "look for yourself" sidesteps the "moral" question implied in the premise of this example that nbperp presents on the manner and extent that a player should potentially "coach" his opponent.

I think I've read every post in this thread, so I'll make a few substantive comments.

1. George's win is completely legitimate. He broke no rule, he was not obliged to tell Alan he was about to make a horrible error, and from Harpua's account I think he acted appropriately in explicitly clarifying the move action was done.

2. Although George was not obliged to allow Alan to take back his move, and I respect, admire, and celebrate George as the World Champion of Heroclix, I would have even more respect and admiration for him as a Heroclix player if he had allowed Alan to take the move back. Further, if George would have allowed Alan to take the move back, and George had lost, I would celebrate George as the epitome of a sportsman. I don't think there's anything contradictory in saying George acted legitimately within the rules, but that he did not epitomize sportsmanship.

3. If I had been in George's situation, I almost certain would have acted as he did.

4. I think what makes this situation so controversial was that Alan's mistake resulted in a very unsatisfying final match. From the accounts I've read, after Alan's failed outwit attempt, George immediately used Shazam to hit Metron for 7 damage (5 after Impervious), putting Metron near his last click. Because Alan did not hit his Impervious roll, the game was pretty much decided on the second turn because of a critical human error. Alan had a very neat and innovative team, and it is disappointing that we didn't get a final match in which both teams were played to perfection.

5. This is pretty irrelevant to the situation, but I consider myself a pretty good Heroclix player and I did not know first-turn immunity prevented a character from being targeted from outwit. I've literally played thousands of Heroclix matches, and I can probably count on two hands the number of times first-turn immunity has come up in my games. And I can't think of one game I've played where the "first turn immunity/outwit" rule has come up since the rule was changed to prevent a character from being targeted generally.

6. Anyone who thinks Alan is anything less than one of the elite players in Heroclix is a moron. Previously, Alan won two championships in 2004, and I believe he was top 16 in 2008. The fact of the matter is he is a great, great, great Heroclix player who happened to make a mistake in a very important game.

7. There don't need to be any rules changes, and I don't think there need to be any clarifications added to the official documents. One isolated situation, albeit a high profile situation, does not mean we need to go about overhauling the rules.

He legally did nothing wrong. I never claimed that he did anything wrong by the rules. He played cotthroat Heroclix which is how some people choose to play and some don't. In all of the years that I have played and judge this game I have only seen a couple of people refuse to let someone take back a move or even not offer to let the other player take it back without asking when they realized they screwed up. In my opinion those people were being dinks. In a tournament like Worlds it is a little more understandable, but it doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it just because of the level of the tournament. I think I posted a revised version of my thoughts the subject a page or two back.

I am not even sure what to say to this.



I guess if you feel the need to split hairs that finely in order to justify anything you do or don't do in this game, maybe Heroclix isn't really for you.

I think this sums things up quite nicely. Rep to you.

I can't not read this thread!

Agreed.

Now if I show a player my Mikron, however, and he/she doesn't grasp the implications of Mikron's special power (current or future), that ain't on me.

For the most part I agree with VGA. I think this is one of those subjects where there are multiple degrees of correctness.

If for example you are playing a fairly inexperienced player, it may be something you want to let slide.

If you're playing a regular, I feel you have every right to point out that the player waited a bit too much and at most points it's incredibly appropriate, especially in a tourney scene. It's just one of those things you might want to handle carefully.

There are a lot of variables to the question though.

Then I win!!!1!1!
I thought splitting hairs is exactly what strictly following the rules encourage.

To clarify my point: there is a potentially "moral and ethical" distinction between giving an affirmative answer (even if the content of that answer is a negative) and complying with the rule in a way that you make no statement whatsoever, leaving the opponent to make his own decision.

If I were player 2, I would answer, "I presently cannot use or possess Telekineses." I think that effectively combines "no" and "not yet" without "coaching" or obfuscating for advantage, in my opinion.