First of all,

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Considering the insane number of threads on "cheap" tactics or builds, I want to suggest a little reading. This explains the reason so many of us simply don't accept the criticism, whether it is leveled at "fortressing", Fat Han, blocking, or whatever other "not in the spirit of the game" thing a person is motivated to rail against.

This thread is here to discuss your impressions of the mind set presented in the linked material, not to attack specific people, builds, or tactics, so please contain replies to the topic at hand. There are plenty of other threads for specific attacks/criticisms if you wish to do so.

Here is the article/book at hand, titled "Playing to Win".

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

First, outstanding topic man!

Second....

So if it is done within the letter of the rules of the game (i.e. no fudging dice rolls, stacked damage decks, gross movement dial violations, slow playing, etc.) I do not see tactics like 'Fortressing', or 'Fat Falcons', or whatever as outside the sprit of the game! In fact I find them a completely valid tactics used by championship caliber level players.

In the end this usually comes down to the timed matches in the early rounds of the tournament and tactics to play on that clock. Flat out this is part of the game and reason why high hit point lists like Dom's 3X Shuttle and 1 Bounty Hunter list is so dangerous in a timed match. In other miniatures games, they use chess clocks and you can lose a match if your time runs out. You need to build your lists with this in mind and have plans on how to beat lists like this. So while it might not be the 'feel good' answer, if you allow your opponent to chew up the clock and sneak out a win, it is on you. That is a fair tactics to winning a game, especially in a big time event like Worlds where the prestige of that event is so high.

Now, that is not to say that your opponent is allowed to slow play you. Meaning that they take 30 minutes just to set their dials, that is not permitted. But if they decide to disengage from combat and run around the board, it is a fair tactic. Sometimes playing to win is not always playing for fun.

In the end we don't want to know who is the 'Most Fun' player in the world to play against, just as we do not want to know who the 'Best Dressed' player in the world is either (My vote, Sable Griffin from Worlds 2014!). We want to know who the 'Best Player' in the world is, and that is a player who can flat out win under any and all circumstances, including timed matches, where they use all of their tactics at their disposal to win the game. And some decisions made in a timed matches are made to pull out the win and not are not the 'fun' or 'cinematic' choices.

A win is a win, bottom line. As long it was done within the rules, then it is still a win.

Great topic man!

This was discussed in the context of many other games, I have encountered the article on the Starcraft Reddit. It helped me "see the light" in the sense that I considered some tactics as "cheese" and I was either angry when being defeated by them or over-triumphant when I was victorious. In the end, I came to accept them as parts of the game.

I did not take part in the 26-page discussion because people are very stubborn about what is cheese and what isn't, what is OP and what is isn't. My favourite comment there was somebody who considered fortressing as cheese, but it was somehow "justifiable" because playing a Phantom is an even greater cheese. People need to grow up and take responsibility for losing, it's the only way they'll learn from the experience. Otherwise they have no benefit from losing. Sure there are outlier games where luck matters more than anything, but most of the time you have something to learn from every loss. If you blame it on the opponent's "cheese" tactic you get nowhere.

edit:typos

X-Camper, the Star Wars miniatures game where you sit your ships in a corner and talk to your opponent for an hour!

My main problem with the Fortress was not that is was "Cheese", as it was a terrible tactic that brought the Rebel player a victory through sheer dumb luck, but that somehow that Fortressing was his ONLY viable tactic against phantoms. Said player then later claimed that that match was intended to be a statement about how IMBA Phantoms are. That in itself is a Scrub mentality as described by the Playing to Win article.

I've been wrecked numerous times by Phantoms w/ swarms, Phantoms w/Decimators, Phantoms w/ Defenders, and what have you. Do i think they're perhaps unreasonably strong? Yes. But instead I tailor my lists and tactics to give me tools to fight them, instead of performing the gaming equivalent of a Sit-In to protest.

There's a huge difference between playing to win and winning at all costs. The people who can't see that are IMO as much a poor sport as the people they're complaining about.

There is a point where abusing the rules, or using loopholes are not good for the game, and need to be addressed. But that's an issue for the game designer to deal with not us.

A tactic as long as it's legal can really never be poor sportsmanlike, it may not be good for the game as a whole but that's not the same thing. It may need to be changed, but again it's not up to us to do that.

Trying to eliminate a tactic or build, because it's "cheap" or "I-Win-Button" is the community trying to enforce rules that don't actually exist, and is both inherently unfair, and unsportsmanlike. Because you are expecting people to abide by a code that they are likely not even aware of.

Fly Casual.

There's a huge difference between playing to win and winning at all costs. The people who can't see that are IMO as much a poor sport as the people they're complaining about.

There is a point where abusing the rules, or using loopholes are not good for the game, and need to be addressed. But that's an issue for the game designer to deal with not us.

A tactic as long as it's legal can really never be poor sportsmanlike, it may not be good for the game as a whole but that's not the same thing. It may need to be changed, but again it's not up to us to do that.

Trying to eliminate a tactic or build, because it's "cheap" or "I-Win-Button" is the community trying to enforce rules that don't actually exist, and is both inherently unfair, and unsportsmanlike. Because you are expecting people to abide by a code that they are likely not even aware of.

This. A thousand times this.

I agree with the article 100%

If it is in the rules, then it is in the rules. I can't really blame someone for trying to win within the rules.

However, the flip side to this: I expect the developers to address tactics that are clearly outside the spirit of the game (mainly thinking about Fortress) with in an upcoming FAQ / rules change. If they don't, and clearly they now are aware of it, then they are OK-ing that kind of play. You are free to play with House Rules for casual play (like mine here for example), but for Premier Events you must play by the developers' rules.

Edit: as has been pointed out a couple times now: "the spirit of the game" is ultimately determined by the game developers. Everyone else's views are merely opinions.

The guy writing the article comes off as a ******. It's douchey to say that you enjoy the game more than everyone else because you think you are better at it, and everyone else is a scrub. That's what I got from it.

Thankfully, in X-wing there are no I win squads, even the much maligned "Fat Han".

I say this because if you put Paul's winning squad in other peoples hands it doesn't win all the time.

Fortressing is risky at best as are other tactics people seem to think are gamey.

Playing to win is PART of the tournament scene and gets more prevalent the higher up the level of tournament goes.

Breaking the rules, or massaging them is poor. using them to the best advantage is fair, legal and perfectly normal.

Stalling on dial setting, claiming actions after you have moved the next ship, that's gamey in a tourney. All the other stuff mentioned in certain threads is not.

If you do not want to play against these things, don't play tournies.

I'm a middle of the road guy, I'll let people do stuff that others may not and if I don't get that reciprocated, then that's life in a tourney.

Not a rant, just the facts of competitive play.

A game is a social contract wherein both parties agree to: A, observe and follow the rules of play, and B, observe and follow the rules of conduct between each other. As long as A and B are not violated, then I have no problem with any maneuver, build, or tactic. As far as I can tell, the infamous X-WING FORTRESS OF 2014 and the players playing the game violated neither. The outcry seems to be from a larger, external group who seems intent upon forcing down concepts of the RIGHT and WRONG ways to play, when they have no authority to classify or mandate such things except as how they wish to conduct themselves. They have every right to express themselves and conduct themselves how they see fit, as long as they realize that conditions A and B exist and must be respected, even by those who may disagree with their righteous indignation.

I agree with the linked article and thread wholeheartedly. It's fine (and healthy) for this conversation to exist, as we are collectively defining the terms of that social contract, but I have seen absolutely nothing in this particular episode that justifies the outrage over the tactic. Further, if the tactic hadn't worked, no one would be saying a **** thing, so it's a testament to the player, IMO, that they were able to pull this off, though I don't know that I buy the whole "done as a protest to the imbalance of the Phantom" nonsense as a driving factor. I think he was simply smart enough to know the strengths/weaknesses of the matchup and did whatever he had to in order to survive. I respect that, and think that the point has been made in regards to what some builds need to do against others, so it's up to FFG to decide if they are OK with that or if the game needs adjustments.

I expect the developers to address tactics that are clearly outside the spirit of the game...

I hope they do. Because you're getting into a RAW vs RAI debate with "spirit of the game". I think Frank and Alex should sit down and discuss this and other things and decide what if anything they want to do about it, then update the rules accordingly.

But we the community can't do that for them, and we shouldn't try, because we can't write the rules, and we can not claim our opinion on what the Spirit of the Game should be, is some sort of objective truth.

That's what I got from it.

He did come off a bit douchey, but what he said about people trying to enforce their own version of the rules on other people is pretty spot on.

I first encountered "Playing to Win" in 2012 (really? two and a half years ago? sigh), when a friend linked to Sirlin's discussion of a scandal in Olympic badminton--basically, two teams matched against each other were both intentionally trying to lose in order to gain an advantageous seeding position.

Basically, I agree with him: if a tactic comes up that looks "unsportsmanlike" but is legal, then the sport (or whatever) has just two choices:

(1) Accept that it's part of the game and move on.

(2) Change the rules so that the incentive for the unsportsmanlike thing no longer exists.

For most of the "problem" strategies in X-wing, players don't have the option to change the game. That leaves us with (1), and hoping FFG will implement something that will accomplish (2). The bad news is that we can't do anything, and I think the nut of the whole deal is that it's really difficult for people to accept that.

(I've been thinking a lot about that dynamic lately because I've been playing a lot of Destiny. There are a few legitimate complaints about the game, but there seems to be a disproportionate level of hatred out there in GamerWorld. Really, my approach boils down to the same thing: I can't change those occasional flaws, so the only thing I can do is accept them and hope they're changed in the future.

The reason for the anger, I think, is that I have to accept that I have no power in the situation, except the power to turn the game off. That's a punch to the ego, and I'm now wondering if a lot of this forum can't be explained by the same frustration--that is, the mismatch between one's desire and one's agency. Maybe the Buddhists have it right.)

So, here are my personal anecdotes from this weekend that illustrate my way of thinking.

First, just FYI I was running a high-risk list with two Sigmas and Echo I call Six Sigma (because two Sigmas with an Echo, eg. Sigma, Sigma, Sigma, Sigma, Sigma, Sigma. Also, it has to be error free play when using it or you lose instantly). On many levels, this is a list that the author of the article I linked would define as a "scrub list" because while it is fun and unique it is also extremely vulnerable to some builds and I KNEW before going to Worlds it wasn't the absolute best list I could bring, though it is very powerful. I brought it because it is fun and unique, and has enough game to go places (especially against swarms, which it murders outright). At the end of the day, I was a "scrub" in the sense that I was doing something I knew for a fact was not the absolute best way to win the tournament. This is the same thing I did last year when I brought Rebel Convoy. I enjoy playing quirky lists against the very best, I get more satisfaction out of every win that way, but I am not delusional about their absolute effectiveness. So my goals were only somewhat aligned towards winning.

My first game was against Richard Hsu. Yes, that Richard with that list. He set in the corner, and I set up DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HIM. He didn't fortress, because my set up and approach made it clear that I would force the engagement, and that was not an accident. I was aware of the possibility, and from asteroid setup onwards I was placing and maneuvering to prevent/defeat it. Wisely, Richard decided that denying himself 4 out of 5 of his actions in an engagement with 3 action-stacked Phantoms was a recipe for failure. So he came out to meet me, and in about 15 minutes I had murdered him because this is one of those match ups that Six Sigma absolutely dominates. Richard could have "fortressed up", but MY play made that a poor strategy in a way that forced his hand and brought him out where I could outmaneuver him with my Phantoms. Fortressing was not an issue in our game, because we were both playing the same game and had no illusions or self-imposed limitations about what the other guy "should do".

My last game was against Typo. Yes, the guy everyone complained about because he boosts away from everyone. This was a terrible, terrible matchup for me largely because my defenses were predicated on a Gunner Han (which is shut down by Sensor Jammer, especially when denied actions) but he had Kyle on Han Solo, which is the single hardest counter to Six Sigma in the game. I knew that going in, so my strategy was to FORCE the boosts, and through doing so separate Jan from Han. If I could destroy Jan for no losses or the loss of a single Sigma, then Han would be unable to continue to run (because I would be ahead of him on points) and would be forced to engage me on my terms, giving me a chance to deal with Han. The method of dealing with him would be using the Intel Agent on the Sigmas to see Hans moves, and blocking with Echo, allowing the Evade+Focus Sigmas to bring down Han, action stacks being more effective than Jammer against single attacks (no gunner). The approach went perfectly, Han and Jan were in opposite corners of the table and facing away from one another, with one Sigma and Echo vs. Jan.

I baited Han into engaging one action stacked Sigma (incidentally, further separating him from Jan), knowing that if I could survive a single shot I could block and delay Han indefinitely with that Sigma and allow me to as much time as I needed to engage Jan. Unfortunately, I completely blanked my dice (any non-blank would have allowed me to survive) and the Sigma was one shot. I now had a time limit to kill Jan, so I had to be more aggressive and take more risks. 4 attacks on Jan later (4, 4, 5, and 4 dice) and she had only lost a single shield. Han returned, and I lost.

I really believe that if that game were played the same way 5 times, I would win 4. That is pretty hard to really state, however, because Typo is not a fool and if things were progressing differently he would have changed his play also (and his list was well equipped to deal with mine), leading to the give and take that makes competitive X-Wing so much fun. On the other hand, Six Sigma is one of those lists that looks great right up until the time when it just plain fails despite your best efforts (like Soontir Fel occasionally blanking the 5 die dodge), and this was one of those games. When it was over, I didn't have any negative feelings about Typo "running away", or resentment about him winning, though I admit to being as human as anyone and disappointed that it didn't break my way. He chose his tactic, I chose my counter, and in the end he came out on top. That's what happens in this game, and why I enjoy it so much.

So neither of those two "cheesy", "unsportsmanlike", "not in the spirit of the game" lists/tactics were an issue in my games because I was playing the same game mentally and simply reacted to them and maneuvered to defeat them. In one game, it worked. In another game, it did not. Such is the nature of X-Wing, and I would be very, very disappointed to see people attempt to change the game to fit their mental blocks rather than simply analyzing and reacting to those tactics like they would anything else.

I really like VanorDM's post because he points out that if someone shows up with a list you don't like (or think is cheep/cheesy/OP) that player is not playing with poor sportsmanship. But if you get all upset by the list your opponent brings you might behaving with poor sportsmanship.

On a different note, there are a lot of rules that might not be known by beginning players or are just really unforgiving when they are forgotten. A few examples are: if you fly off the board you are dead, what happens when you do a red maneuver while stressed, and no pre-measuring on barrel-rolls and boosts.

Originally I used to make a distinction between casual play and tournament play, where I didn't worry so much about these rules in casual play. But I soon learned that I want my casual play to prepare me for tournament play and playing by "different" rules in these situation didn't help hone my skills. So now I like to do a quick review before play of all these rules. This serves two purposes. It helps my opponent learn/know/remember the correct rules, and it lets them know that I will be holding them to these rules during play without being a jerk myself.

So neither of those two "cheesy", "unsportsmanlike", "not in the spirit of the game" lists/tactics were an issue in my games because I was playing the same game mentally and simply reacted to them and maneuvered to defeat them. In one game, it worked. In another game, it did not. Such is the nature of X-Wing, and I would be very, very disappointed to see people attempt to change the game to fit their mental blocks rather than simply analyzing and reacting to those tactics like they would anything else.

I could not agree more with this statement, from someone who played the list in question. Thank you for sharing this!

It shows that you had the thought process to be able to deal with both of these lists and had a plan for what to do. As opposed to calling it a 'cheesy' tactic, you reacted to it. And do not blame either player for using a tactic or list that is within the rules of the game.

Very well said sir!

If it is in the rules, then it is in the rules. I can't really blame someone for trying to win within the rules.

However, the flip side to this: I expect the developers to address tactics that are clearly outside the spirit of the game (mainly thinking about Fortress) with in an upcoming FAQ / rules change. If they don't, and clearly they now are aware of it, then they are OK-ing that kind of play. You are free to play with House Rules for casual play (like mine here for example), but for Premier Events you must play by the developers' rules.

But the "spirit of the game" is very subjective. What one player thinks is outside of the "spirit of the game" and what another player or more importantly the game designers think may vary widely.

Just because you think something should be changed (even if you have math to back you up ) doesn't mean it will be.

I don't think any one has a problem with house rules in general. And if your gaming group comes up with some together with some form of consensus they are great. But if even one person doesn't like them you've got a problem. You have a bigger problem when someone else tries to join your group. That person may have been playing/practicing/getting to know a game that you, in a way, aren't playing any more.

If it is in the rules, then it is in the rules. I can't really blame someone for trying to win within the rules.

However, the flip side to this: I expect the developers to address tactics that are clearly outside the spirit of the game (mainly thinking about Fortress) with in an upcoming FAQ / rules change. If they don't, and clearly they now are aware of it, then they are OK-ing that kind of play. You are free to play with House Rules for casual play (like mine here for example), but for Premier Events you must play by the developers' rules.

But the "spirit of the game" is very subjective. What one player thinks is outside of the "spirit of the game" and what another player or more importantly the game designers think may vary widely.

Just because you think something should be changed (even if you have math to back you up ) doesn't mean it will be.

I don't think any one has a problem with house rules in general. And if your gaming group comes up with some together with some form of consensus they are great. But if even one person doesn't like them you've got a problem. You have a bigger problem when someone else tries to join your group. That person may have been playing/practicing/getting to know a game that you, in a way, aren't playing any more.

Yes, I actually agree with all of that - I should edit my post to point out that "clearly against the spirit of the game" is in reality determined by the creators of the game and none others. It is implied in the next sentence that the developers either OK the tactics and you have to live with it, or they address it with a FAQ change.

According to quite a few people, Turrets violate the spirit of the game. It is really tough to use that as an argument.

I really wished they had shown your squad Kinetic Operator. It sounded really cool.

I totally agree that you are allowed to create lists and use tactics to your benefits as long as they don't violate the rules of the game. However what might make me beeing a "scrub" and goes against my playstyle and my interpretaion of "fly casual" is, that I want to win against opponents at their best and not capitalise on their lack of concentration.

Meaning, e.g. if the opposing player forgets to recloak his phantom after attacking, i will remind him, and let him redo it (as it was done at GenCon Finals). As I said, for me i can only enjoy a win if i know i beat the opposing player at his best, and not just because he was distracted or something.

I know staying focused is part of the game and a skill too, but in that case i would consider myself just lucky, and i'd rather win with skill and not luck ;-)

The problem I have with Fortressing is that it makes the game look bad.

X-wing is not necessarily a spectator sport, but I consider fortressing through the same lens. Consider a gamer walking by who had never seen X-wing before, but is a Star Wars fan. The models look awesome - you've got his attention. Now explain to him why the next 40 minutes of your game involves 4 ships sitting in a corner without moving, while the other squad runs laps on the far side of the board. I kinda doubt your spectator is going to be walking out of the store with a bag full of X-wing.

Vorpal Sword is right that it's up to FFG to fix this, not us. But it is up to us to decide what sort of face this game presents to the world. Is anyone going to be frantically tracking down That Game to show their friends who've been reluctant to get into X-wing, because it's going to change their mind about the game? Is anyone going to want to show it off, ever? Or are we going to very quietly mumble something about "Playing to Win" and "It's legal" hope nobody ever sees it?

So legal or not, competitive or not, consider the face it presents to those outside our bubble. Personally, I feel actively embarrassed at the idea of having to explain that game to someone who doesn't play X-wing.

As I said, for me i can only enjoy a win if i know i beat the opposing player at his best, and not just because he was distracted or something.

But you're not beating him at his best, you're beating him at his best plus your help. Not making a mistake in the first place is the true sign of skill.

Personally, I feel actively embarrassed at the idea of having to explain that game to someone who doesn't play X-wing.

I get that, but it's not like that's the only game someone could use to show people top level play of X-Wing.

I get that, but it's not like that's the only game someone could use to show people top level play of X-Wing.

I understand that, but it's not really the point I was making.

When we consider this tactic - whether the rules should be changed to disallow it, and to a lesser extent whether it should be used until that happens or if it never does - we should consider how it presents the game. Yes, there are plenty of other videos you can show off, but none of them help inform us as to this particular tactic, and how we should consider it.

The fact that there are others to show, and I suspect everyone would show those others before this one, should speak volumes about this particular game and the tactics which led to it.