You CAN keep things loose and fun even using the rules properly :D

I'm at work, so no long reply... but...

... So the gist of what you are saying is integrity /following rules and social gaming are not compatible?

Just because a game may be set in a social setting doesn't mean you show lower your standards.

I think what is basically being said is give your opponent the benefit of the doubt first before being a stickler for the rules. There is a lot going on in a Heroclix game and sometimes people lose sight of things.

This doesn't mean you should coach your opponent but if they decide a course of action is not what is right for them let them redo it as long as no rolls or other events have taken place that have altered things from when they first started their turn.

I would much rather win knowing that I gave my opponent the ability to think things through then to know I won because I said "no take backsies".

If you go back and reread the first post, it sounds as if the OP is speaking of a habitual abuser of the privilege of take-backs.

I think the problem in question IS a matter of coaching, so to speak. Yeah, we all screw up, but nobody should expect his opponent to not hold him to his mistake.

What about the other guy? Does he enjoy winning under the knowledge that he would not have had he followed the rules?

That's why I brought up playing against kids in my post. I'm thinking about their experience, too, and really any opponent I play against.

And I'd never say following the rules is incompatible with social gaming. I certianly play the game Sorry or Monopoly by the rules and have fun. But this game is certainly vastly more complex, and I allow a more relaxed game to allow for that complexity to be enjoyed and savored.


Your counterpoint doesn't make sense to me, either. I don't lower my standards at all. I just apply different standards to myself than I do my opponent (harsher to myself). I don't want to impose my sense of how to play the game on my opponent as long as the spirit of the rules is being followed.

As I said, if you're having fun and so is your opponent, then there's certainly no problem. If someone isn't having fun... then I think that's worth taking a look at why and determining some means of adjustment to get everyone having fun...

Players certainly have to accept the rules. I've played against kids (usually pretty young) who would just make things up and try to do hilariously absurd moves against me. I wouldn't let them do just anything, but I would give them ideas about their options and help them to follow the rules, while still making sure they feel in control of their game and have a fun time.

The rules are there because structure is important to a game. I won't deny that at all. But I really do value the quality of the time I spend playing games of clix above whether or not someone broke a rule that, to me, merely shows a mind at work (people see new things that they can't always visualize before doing).

1. I see it as a favor, and we don't really know that it is an abuse. Maybe the player simply has trouble seeing things until they move things around. We really don't know the nature of their games.

2. As soon as someone asks "Can I..." then I don't think they have the expectation of escaping a mistake, but are asking a favor of me. One I'll probably grant because things happen.

3. And again... who knows what kind of fun the other player is having and whether they consider a take-back some kind of cheating by which they prospered, or if they simply are glad that they realized their mistake quickly and were allowed to adjust their game strategy. Maybe that's how they roll. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for holding someone to the rules. I just don't know the value of doing so, if the rules don't enhance the experience of playing. For me, I want to have a good time, and when possible, I want to make sure my opponent had one, too. What's wrong with that?

You and I can, sure.

I just don't think everyone can. It's a complex game and I'd rather extend a reasonable allowance to my opponent than not.

And then it's all about what each of us thinks is reasonable... it seems like I would offer a bit more latitude compared to some others. I'm sure there are others who would go further than me.

I think jackstar7 adequately summed up my feelings on this.

ok, here's my 2 cents, if it happend like this
"i OW your RS, oh wait i mean imperv", then you shood let the guy change it, if it happend like this
"i OW your RS, and now im gona attack iron man, (roll's) oh wait i ment to OW imperv" then this shood not be aloud.
i have ran in to this befor and have sayed the wronge ability when i ment to say another power of the same color.
just dont let it ruin your gameing exp., bring it up to your judge, and if you are te judge, rule it the way you think it shood be done, but remember that other people that look to you to provide them with a fun and exciteing place to play, no one like's a person that get's to hung up on the igzact (pun intended) wording of the rule to were they say something on mistake when they mean to say something else, IE 1st exsample.

I'm in favor of "everyone plays by the rules, and the rules are always the same." It makes for a consistent experience and was the major benefit to the Approved Play system IMO.

If you declare a free action and then declare another action, you're done.
"I'll Outwit RS...no, maybe Invul...you know, I think I'll save that Outwit"- fine, you're talking through your options. "I'll Outwit RS. Now Super-dude will attack...wait, I wanna change the Outwit"? Maybe, in a casual environment, but in a tournament a shouldn't allow that unless it's the bye and you're new. Otherwise I'm just supporting your sloppy habits.

Harpua has already pointed out the rules support for that: if you want to go down the road of "but those aren't official rules/rulings anymore" then there aren't any official rules: do whatever you want.

Allowing your opponent to back-track their decisions is nice, and if you choose to do that then more power to you. But it doesn't make you a jerk to play by the rules and expect others to do the same. It makes you a jerk to treat a player who does that as if they're a jerk.

Here in Brasilia, Brazil, we play at this way:
once an action was declared, the player is in a strategic moment and he can do any take backs that he wants, but, if he do anything that forces me to interact, like declare a path through a hindering terrain with a character that has boot speed, no take backs. In other words, if I been forced to interact due an error, no take backs.
When he declares another action, the past action was resolved, so, after this point no take backs.

Since Outwit is so prevelant in the game today, and in some instances, there are multiple outwits on each side, I find it best to give each outwitter 2 colored poker chips. One stays on the outwitter, and the second changes to whomever he has targetted with his power. Once the outwitter has placed his chip, he has now declared his free action and is "locked in."

Not only does this help limit "take backs" but it also helps in determining what piece outwitted what piece.

However, there can still be some confusion if one piece is the target of multiple outwits. For this, I would stack the chips in order of the outwitted powers on the dial: SP, AV, DV, Damage.

The fact that you can accept it does not mean that everybody should.
That´s what I´m trying to say here.
The OP was very clear with the example he put, and the rules support his desicion.
He could have been more lenient? maybe...
Is he obliged to offer a bit more latitude? nope...
Is he a jrk cause he wants to play by the rules? nope...
And this is my point!
A lot of people here are claiming that he´s being a Richard cause he wants to play by the rules.
And that is not correct.
I can´t accept that.

I play with all type of players, but we usually try to have fun, we even make fun of our own mistakes, but we accept them. WE made those mistakes, why should my opponent pay for them?
I usually have no problem with some reasonable take backs, I even lost some games by accepting them (yes, that change of outwit killed my piece ) but its ok cause its a game for me.
But we also found a way to make fun of our own mistakes.
Fair play is NOT letting someone take back his desicions.

Fair play is using your dice in a way nobody has doubts that it was a proper roll.
Fair play is telling your opponent your values and powers without delay or problem.
Fair play is (to me) letting your opponent that does not know your figs to study them before the game begins, and explaining him your feats and special powers.
Fair play is giving your opponent reasonable time to give answer to your declarations (wildcard choices, declaring Skrull or SC or things like that) before rolling the dice.
Fair play is not kicking the fallen horse, some guys do not like to lose, but they behave properly, so go and shout him "in your faceeeee!" it won´t help.
Fair play is a lot of things, but playing by the book s also fair play cause it is the only way you can be sure that you play the same game at your venue, your house, or in another country.

VGA,

I dont have problem with holding a person to an outwit decision.

However, context is important here.

1) If you are both agreeing to play competitively then certainly hold him to it (It improves his game when you do).

2) If you are trying to get better or playing casually dont (It doesnt help you get any better when you hold your opponent to a sub-optimal move. In fact it actually makes you a worse player because you end up overvaluing a startegy that is flawed.)

3) If you are playing a noob (you will probably win anyway) are you overly focused on the match and missing the bigger pitcure. Dont you get better when you help more players to enjoy the game and get better at it.

If you make a player enjoy the game and get better at it by correcting them and allowing the better move then you and your opponent will likely both get more out of it in the long run.

Dont be so short-sighted as to look only at the context of the match when there is a lot more going on in life then the match you are in at the moment.

One. I'm not advocating that everyone play the game with my attitude. I know that's not going to happen.

Two. I'm not calling VGA anything. I certainly hope I didn't imply anything. I think the people calling him names are laughable.

Three. I completely support fairness. I completely support following the rules. I want everyone to have an even chance to win using their team (since the dice usually dictate).


My only real questions are: Are you having fun? Is your opponent?

My simple philosophy is that if you're not having fun, then you're doing it wrong. If fun is being had by all... then people keep coming back to play and this new WK can hopefully thrive.