Finished the other pages now.

I see comparison to scouting for a game like Chess. No "secret" information there and it definitely is done. I can even remember hearing some of the grandmasters "competing" against the computer that the computer has an unfair advantage because it has seen all of the master's games yet the computer's games are completely unknown. Now I guess you can use that to make an argument either way; the computer "cheats" because it scouts the human while it is impossible for the human to scout the computer.

The opponents, expecting the much more common Koiogran in a joust, or your continued attempts to disengage from a chase, will usually fly right into your sights, without putting you in theirs.

How does that work? Wouldn't they either bump into your side or fly past you and be on your other side (or, I guess, fall short and have you in their sights at a closer range than if you had K-turned)?

Perhaps a new topic covering the Matador turn and collapsing star move so as to not derail this thread more than we already have?

(Collapsing star: Formation fly into the scrim, as normal. Second round of combat, your back-row do matador-turns as your front row Koiogran. All of your TIEs still have a very potent kill-zone of concentrated fire, but your opponent can only put 1/2 of them in their arc, at most. Third turn, finish your Matador with the back-row, and have your Front-row perform a 3-Forward. Now the front's back in front, and you've still got all of the kill-zone potential.)

I would actually, and really really, like to see this done...

Yeah, I don't know what a Matador turn is, and this is honestly the most productive part of the discussion.

Makes me wish I had something other than Microsoft Paint to illustrate the entire turn-by-turn roll-out for you guys. Might have to find my camera and re-create it...

Matador Turn: Rather than executing a koiogran or attempting to out-distance a chasing opponent, instead to a 1 turn, followed by a Barrel-Roll, so that you overlap your original position. This almost works out as a Shuttle's Stop, but with a 90* pivot.

The opponents, expecting the much more common Koiogran in a joust, or your continued attempts to disengage from a chase, will usually fly right into your sights, without putting you in theirs.

One great thing about adding this tactic to your arsenal is that, once you've taught an opponent to expect it, you can return to the Koiogran/Disengage patterns they used to suspect, as there are exceedingly few positions they can take that would cover both tactics.

I doubt its as good as the Pkunk Death Flower. No one expects that.

The opponents, expecting the much more common Koiogran in a joust, or your continued attempts to disengage from a chase, will usually fly right into your sights, without putting you in theirs.

How does that work? Wouldn't they either bump into your side or fly past you and be on your other side (or, I guess, fall short and have you in their sights at a closer range than if you had K-turned)?

Perhaps a new topic covering the Matador turn and collapsing star move so as to not derail this thread more than we already have?

Time to find my camera indeed.

You are playing in a Rock, Paper, Scissor tournament. You show up early and so have many other people. inside your bag you have taken one of each of the possibilities. Every player is eager to show off what they are playing this day leaving their Rocks, Papers, and Scissors lying about the tables. You have not turned in you registration sheet yet and notice about 60% of the players have Rock sitting in front of them. You then gleefully pull out your Paper and turn in your registration. Now 20% Paper, 20% Scissors and 60%Rock have it out. knowing the mass amount of Rocks showing up will take care of your nemesis Scissor and your dominating game vs Rocks leaves you a good chance of winning the tournament. Now that is scouting!

For the love of all that is good, could you please tell me what a Rock army is? And by that same token, a Scissor army? And a Paper army? Because I swear, I show up to our tournaments and I lose ALL the time. I wanna know what these **** armies are.

Maybe I shouldn't be bringing the Lizard flown by Spock.

Not sure if your really looking for a description of the current meta game in X-Wing or telling a good joke or both?

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

I see nothing wrong with someone scouting my table. If they do, I know to use different tactics against them. You can't stick rigidly to a game plan. Most game plans fall apart in the first couple of plays. You can script, but adjust to your opponent as you see his/her counters.

I look forward to someone scouting me out only to see that my tactics have changed when I get to play against them.

So, today FFG posted another Turn Zero article by Paul Heaver. While it contains a lot of interesting and important information about metagaming, I was troubled by this sentence: "...throughout the tournament, take time to watch other matches after you complete yours. You may possibly discover some interesting tactics you might not have thought of, and you may also see how your future opponents act."

This is known as 'scouting' and it's discouraged in most organized play environments that I know of. It doesn't tend to get enforced very much, but I don't personally consider the tactic very sportsmanlike.

Thoughts on this? Does FFG have anything in their floor rules that allows or disallows scouting?

Personally I don't see the problem with it. It's not like you can modify your squad at that point to counter what you see. Just gives you some extra time to formulate a plan. And people who lose fast benefit as much as those who win fast anyway.

I'm seeing two conflicting responses. If you don't like scouting either:

A) You are too competitive. That is why you are so uptight that you would not want people watching your game.

or

B) You are not competitive enough. Scouting is just one more way to gain an edge and any smart person does it.

Paul's article was about metagaming. A skill that is crucial to develop if you want to win tournaments. I believe it's what separates 'professional' and 'casual' players.

I wouldn't have bothered to post this topic in response to the article (especially if I knew I'd be insulted so much) if I didn't have a very specific example in mind that happened to me at Imdaar Alpha just a week and a half prior.

It was the last round of Swiss and the winner of my game would be going on to the Top 2. The player who either me or my opponent would be facing next plopped himself down next to our table and glared intently at our pieces. He said nothing to either of us (perhaps being polite) but it made me uncomfortable.

I will freely admit I come from a CCG background where such a move would have been utterly unacceptable. And hell, I actually would have been fine with his behavior if he had simply asked, "Do you mind if I watch?" But it was clear he was trying to gain an edge on either of us and I didn't like it. I suppose nothing in the rules forbids it so you can tell me to suck it up, but it still just feels shady and impolite to me.

tl;dr - Scouting totally happens and some people are dicks about it. Don't be that guy.

Are you referring to the event at Gamers Armory on Sunday?

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

What are R3 and Predators?

Also I read it more as you may spot something you never even thought of. Like 'oh wow, I never thought about doing x with a falcon' or whatever.

Rather than 'oooh I'm playing him next, let me see how he plays so I can counter it'

I didn't read the whole thread cus words and stuff, but seriously, scouting is such a major part of our competitive society people get paid just to go and watch other teams play and take notes on it. Y'know, Scouts? It's a thing, and some people make careers out of it in professional sports.

When I was coaching HS track, my runners would track down times, records, and splits for everyone we were going up against. The information is there, and utilization of it is completely benign. There is no evil conspiracy about getting a look at people's play style, habits, etc.

If you want to avoid giving people that information, then perhaps playing at home, against yourself is your best bet.

i think it's funny the articles on FFGs site are from a guy who the majority of the forum thinks is on a whole other level from everyone else... but there is no way to judge how good he REALLY is because the worlds event is in MN and restricted to those who have the free time and $$$ to attend.

i'm not belittling the accomplishment of winning worlds, i'm just saying there could be tens or hundreds of guys out there that are "on the same level" but that dont have the means or inclination to attend.

Paul Heaver has played in the last two Vassal tournaments--online tournaments using free software. He does just fine.

Then we also have the whole issue of just what is Sportsmanship actually is.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

And how is a Raven like a Writing Desk?

what do vassal tournaments have to do with anything? again, it's inferred that somehow participating and/or winning something that involves a small subset of competitive players somehow makes you more noteworthy than anyone else.

...and that's a load of bull squat.

that's all im saying.

and i wish FFG would post some articles about making the lesser ships not seen often in the meta more usable. im working on and tweaking several lists right now with the intention of doing just that. so i post some of the better ones up when they are finalized.

what do vassal tournaments have to do with anything? again, it's inferred that somehow participating and/or winning something that involves a small subset of competitive players somehow makes you more noteworthy than anyone else.

...and that's a load of bull squat.

that's all im saying.

and i wish FFG would post some articles about making the lesser ships not seen often in the meta more usable. im working on and tweaking several lists right now with the intention of doing just that. so i post some of the better ones up when they are finalized.

And do you mean like that Shuttle Article they did? They have to vary up their articles. This one is good. Short, sweet, and useful. I'd love an article that talks about emotional control and dice math personally. Maybe we'll get that someday.

what do vassal tournaments have to do with anything? again, it's inferred that somehow participating and/or winning something that involves a small subset of competitive players somehow makes you more noteworthy than anyone else.

The Vassal tournament is about as all-inclusive as it's possible to get. Are there better players out there? Maybe, probably, whatever. At some point, if they don't bother to show up, who cares? I'm fully on board with the idea that any given event only tests who attends, and that high barriers to entry (such as a long trip to Minnesota in November) can skew that. But you're not going to get barriers much lower than the Vassal tournaments. You're starting to make this sound less like a concern over barriers to competition (which is valid, if less than maturely stated) and more like some odd personal issue with Paul himself.

As Aminar says, he's shown that he's a very capable player. Nobody has claimed he's the best player in the world and can defeat all comers. What his victories do, though, is show that he's a very capable player with good qualifications for sharing advice. If you think that advice is bad, you're free to say so, but the personal shots at Paul seem to be very misplaced.

and i wish FFG would post some articles about making the lesser ships not seen often in the meta more usable. im working on and tweaking several lists right now with the intention of doing just that. so i post some of the better ones up when they are finalized.

Seriously? If we remove announcements and previews, FFG doesn't do much else in the way of articles, although that's starting to change a little. So what do we have in that category? Three of Paul's Turn Zero series, one from Hothie on growing your collection, and three ship-specific articles: The A-wing, Lambda, and Firespray.

So about half the articles are "about making the lesser ships not seen often in the meta more usable".

I honestly have no idea what to make of your objections at this point, because it seems like you've basically got something personal against Paul and are flinging random crap at the screen. I don't worship the guy by any means, but come on - if you're going to get personal like that you should probably at least backcheck your claims first.

it really would be interesting to have a ranking system for the competitive folks in x-wing, i wonder if RHQ could work something up for the game.

I would not be looking to work with Rankings HQ. For one they are now largely defunct, secondly they only record your results if you have signed up an account with them (They ignore the results of players without an account so it doesn't provide accurate rankings), thirdly they refused to give back the data that the Australian 40k and Fantasy communities had provided them to get them up and running in the first place. Australia no longer uses RHQ for anything and likely never will ever again.

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

What are R3 and Predators?

R3 = Rebels 3

Predators = PS bid builds

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

What are R3 and Predators?

R3 = Rebels 3

Predators = PS bid builds

Those are.... extremely broad categories.

Also, how are 3 ship rebel builds ever better than, say, 5 Gammas with Seismic Charges? Or Bloody Daggers?

And where do my 3 Bounty Hunters fit into this? Or my BBBBlockORS?

Hamlet had a quote about this, I'm sure of it.

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

What are R3 and Predators?

R3 = Rebels 3

Predators = PS bid builds

Those are.... extremely broad categories.

Also, how are 3 ship rebel builds ever better than, say, 5 Gammas with Seismic Charges? Or Bloody Daggers?

And where do my 3 Bounty Hunters fit into this? Or my BBBBlockORS?

Hamlet had a quote about this, I'm sure of it.

Dracon, I would happily show you how a triple X build dominates Bloody daggers!

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

What are R3 and Predators?

R3 = Rebels 3

Predators = PS bid builds

Those are.... extremely broad categories.

Also, how are 3 ship rebel builds ever better than, say, 5 Gammas with Seismic Charges? Or Bloody Daggers?

And where do my 3 Bounty Hunters fit into this? Or my BBBBlockORS?

Hamlet had a quote about this, I'm sure of it.

Dracon, I would happily show you how a triple X build dominates Bloody daggers!

3 X's is not a reliable squad. It can work, but it's very very reliant on Luck and player skill in a way Bloody Daggers just isn't.

Current meta is Swarms > R3 > Predators > Swarms* with variations in between for local metas and player idiosyncrasies.

What are R3 and Predators?

R3 = Rebels 3

Predators = PS bid builds

Those are.... extremely broad categories.

Also, how are 3 ship rebel builds ever better than, say, 5 Gammas with Seismic Charges? Or Bloody Daggers?

And where do my 3 Bounty Hunters fit into this? Or my BBBBlockORS?

Hamlet had a quote about this, I'm sure of it.

Yes they are broad categories. Which is why I consider them more archetypes than actual individual lists.

If you examine them, each is fundamentally

Swarm = I have more ships than you can kill (so I will kill yours faster).

R3 = My ships are better than yours (so I will kill yours faster).

Predator = My pilots are better than yours (so I will kill yours faster).

The key weakness of R3 is that it has few guns, so it will get overrun by a decent swarm player. The key weakness of a predator build is that its ships are fundamentally less durable than R3 thus more susceptible to opportunity shots. The key weakness of the swarm is that they move first and fire last and are thus susceptible to PS bidding.

5x Gamma w/ SC is an adaptation of the swarm.

3x BH is in essence an R3 build; as is bloody daggers, that has been developed to address a particular weakness of the archetype.

I'm seeing two conflicting responses. If you don't like scouting either:

A) You are too competitive. That is why you are so uptight that you would not want people watching your game.

or

B) You are not competitive enough. Scouting is just one more way to gain an edge and any smart person does it.

Paul's article was about metagaming. A skill that is crucial to develop if you want to win tournaments. I believe it's what separates 'professional' and 'casual' players.

I wouldn't have bothered to post this topic in response to the article (especially if I knew I'd be insulted so much) if I didn't have a very specific example in mind that happened to me at Imdaar Alpha just a week and a half prior.

It was the last round of Swiss and the winner of my game would be going on to the Top 2. The player who either me or my opponent would be facing next plopped himself down next to our table and glared intently at our pieces. He said nothing to either of us (perhaps being polite) but it made me uncomfortable.

I will freely admit I come from a CCG background where such a move would have been utterly unacceptable. And hell, I actually would have been fine with his behavior if he had simply asked, "Do you mind if I watch?" But it was clear he was trying to gain an edge on either of us and I didn't like it. I suppose nothing in the rules forbids it so you can tell me to suck it up, but it still just feels shady and impolite to me.

tl;dr - Scouting totally happens and some people are dicks about it. Don't be that guy.

While this likely only pertains to those from the Raleigh-Durham area who use this forum, theninthguardian (Daniel who plays at AE) and I (Rick who plays at GA & EHG) are currently discussing his concerns about whether my watching of his game at Sunday's AoIA event in town was something unethical he calls "scouting" (I guess this is some kind of Magic no-no???). So long as those talks continue to remain professional and productive I expect one of us will post something to close the matter once our talks have concluded.

I appreciate everyone who has been in touch with me regarding this issue and those who have posted in support of tabletop miniature game watching as being absolutely acceptable in a tournament environment.