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.

But you should be able to show that game to someone as an example. There's a pretty big difference between showing a game where someone gets dismantled by a whisper or a fat han where you can point out strengths and mistakes, or even when some takes a Shuttle fortress and stalls for 2 turns to see where his opponents flying, and the Fortress match. Even a casual observer could tell thats a boring game going on.

I like the spirit of the article, but I find it a bit oversimplistic in its approach. Sure, there is playing to win, but there are more than one way to win and searching for those strategies by making experiments and taking chances, even if it means losing more, does not make one a scrub by any means.

I like thinking of myself as "playing to win", but that will not prevent me from trying all those interesting combinations. If people say that "this ship or upgrade is bad" then it will be the first one that I'll want to experiment with. It's not because I'm a masochist, but rather because I want to find out for myself if I can make it work. The internet has been wrong before

dotswarlock -

You and I are on the same page in terms of lists. In some ways, I am a scrub. I like to play quirky lists, that is what I enjoy the most, and by the definition found in the article that makes me a scrub at least at some level. I can own that. The difference in my opinion is that I KNOW that I am ultimately not a hard core competitor the likes of Paul Heaver. I want to give you the best game I can, but ultimately I am sacrificing some of my chance to win in order to play lists I enjoy more than other lists that are more effective. I also appreciate people like Paul who are the best and bring their best, because I am enough of a competitor that I don't find any satisfaction in facing people who are anything short of the best playing at the top of their game. We aren't the same people, we draw satisfaction from different things. In fact, I bet there is a real chance he doesn't even enjoy all the same foods I do, but I'm pretty sure that isn't a criticism.

The only thing I don't appreciate is describing great players (and great guys) who are playing at the top of their game as poor sports/cheesy/etc. for doing so. Those are the guys I want to face, and I want them to pull out all the stops when I face them, nothing short of that provides me any sense of accomplishment.

Edit: I don't want to overstate my case. The lists I bring are dangerous, and extraordinarily effective within themselves, I'm not bringing my B-Game I am bringing the best I can bring within those confines. They are not top tier lists because they tend to have glaring weaknesses due to their nature, not because I chose an intentionally sub-standard setup. Rebel Convoy was vulnerable to large numbers of ships like swarms, because it could only consistently control an equal number of ships. Six Sigma was vulnerable because it was an action efficiency + positioning list, that was vulnerable to lists that could gain actions and pseudo actions despite bumping and to lists that could negate arc-dodging efforts.

As a player, I'm okay with all possible tactics within the game rules. As a spectator, I hate to watch these kind of tactics.

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.

But you should be able to show that game to someone as an example.

Yes, and I agree that I think it would be better for the game if FFG does something about these kinds of tactics. But the fact that it's happened once out of the 200+ games at Worlds says quite clearly that this isn't as huge of a deal as some people are making it out to be.

The fact that such a match is boring to watch is not a suitable reason to change the rules. Neither is the possibility that someone might think twice about trying the game after seeing it. How many people are really going to have their first impression set by the World Championship? Judging the game based on that is a bit like deciding I can't play golf because I couldn't compete at the US Open.

If the behavior is bad for the game, or not in keeping with the Spirit that Frank and Alex want for the game, that is a reason to change the game. The fact that some people think a given tactic is boring is not.

If the behavior is bad for the game, or not in keeping with the Spirit that Frank and Alex want for the game, that is a reason to change the game. The fact that some people think a given tactic is boring is not.

You know that I'm always cautious about declaring the intent or spirit of the game, but I think we can safely assume the spirit of the game is not "boring".

Even though a lot of the focus is on this one game, we know this is out there and active, and has been for a long time. I don't think "It sucks" is a good reason to ignore it. For one, people are actually getting better at it. The action loss is the main issue, I believe Richard used Cracken to offset it somewhat. What happens when someone tries it with a 4B squad with Advanced Sensors? What penalty is that squad paying? Since it appeared, we've also gotten a number of upgrades and enhancements which don't require actions - a never-moving Luke with R2-D2 and Predator would not be an easy target. And that's only going to get worse going forward, as we get more and more options that trigger on green maneuvers, or don't require actions to enhance your ship without actions.

Honestly, and I'll freely admit this is a data-less assertion, I think it's possible that fortressing isn't much of a problem because it's considered such a cheesy tactic. If you normalize it, and turn the entire collective brainpower of the X-wing community to abusing it, it's going to get so very much worse, very quickly.

How can we be more inclusive of people who play to win?

Here's the other thing for me, at the end of the day. Has anyone, ever, made a positive case for fortressing? Not "It's legal" or "But it sucks" or "Play to Win" or "But it'll be hard to fix it without side effects" or "Don't change it just because of some internet whiners", but an affirmative case that the game is better off with fortressing than it would be without it?

Consider bumping. Lots of people dislike bumping, but there's a positive case to be made for it - it evens up the utility of pilot skill, makes action control/advantage a more active part of the game, and rewards both maneuver and positioning. People may disagree with that, but at least the argument is there.

So why is the game better with fortressing than without it? Because in all the times this has come up, from the very first Millennium Fortress post to now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that case.

but I think we can safely assume the spirit of the game is not "boring".

I agree, but who gets to decide what is boring? I know a number of people who think playing against something with turrets is both boring and against the spirit of the game.

I don't think "It sucks" is a good reason to ignore it.

Agreed again, how good or bad it is isn't realievent, a bad tactic can still be bad for the overall health of the game.

Because in all the times this has come up, from the very first Millennium Fortress post to now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that case.

I don't think anyone has, or will. The argument normally is about sportsmanship and other subjective issues.

Here's the other thing for me, at the end of the day. Has anyone, ever, made a positive case for fortressing? Not "It's legal" or "But it sucks" or "Play to Win" or "But it'll be hard to fix it without side effects" or "Don't change it just because of some internet whiners", but an affirmative case that the game is better off with fortressing than it would be without it?

Consider bumping. Lots of people dislike bumping, but there's a positive case to be made for it - it evens up the utility of pilot skill, makes action control/advantage a more active part of the game, and rewards both maneuver and positioning. People may disagree with that, but at least the argument is there.

So why is the game better with fortressing than without it? Because in all the times this has come up, from the very first Millennium Fortress post to now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that case.

Here's the other thing for me, at the end of the day. Has anyone, ever, made a positive case for fortressing? Not "It's legal" or "But it sucks" or "Play to Win" or "But it'll be hard to fix it without side effects" or "Don't change it just because of some internet whiners", but an affirmative case that the game is better off with fortressing than it would be without it?

Consider bumping. Lots of people dislike bumping, but there's a positive case to be made for it - it evens up the utility of pilot skill, makes action control/advantage a more active part of the game, and rewards both maneuver and positioning. People may disagree with that, but at least the argument is there.

So why is the game better with fortressing than without it? Because in all the times this has come up, from the very first Millennium Fortress post to now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that case.

I don't see the value in fielding 6 Rebel Operatives, therefor we should reconsider its inclusion (or legality) in the game. Is that really the line of reasoning you want to use here?

I don't think you can make a case that a tactic that involves not moving your ships in a game with a flight-path system (key word being FLIGHT) is one that is good for the game.

Can you honestly say that if you played your first X-wing game against someone who turltled/fortressed/napped in the corner and just waited for you to come into his killzone that you would have bothered to get into this game?

Please, please, please keep this on topic. If you want to complain about fortressing, take it over to the semi-official fort-complaint thread next door. This is about the general idea of playing to win as outlined in the linked article, not over the details of one particular tactic. If you don't believe it is good for the game when a player uses any available tactic, if you believe the game is not deep enough to support that sort of play, then post that here. If you don't like something in particular for whatever reason, put that in another thread and complain away.

I, like KineticOperator, am a "scrub" most of the time as I play lists I like playing. That is my choice, but I ALWAYS play to win. I don't care if I lose, but anything less than my best game with my list is an insult to my opponent who came wanting to play their best game.

I like the aspect of this game that pits my wits against my opponents. Playing to win within the rules is part of what this game is about. Now being a ****** bag with an attitude whilst you play, that's a whole different story and nothing to do with "Playing to Win"

Here's the other thing for me, at the end of the day. Has anyone, ever, made a positive case for fortressing?...

So why is the game better with fortressing than without it? Because in all the times this has come up, from the very first Millennium Fortress post to now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that case.

I don't think anyone is going to show up and say "I think it's just the greatest!" I think most, if not all, players will agree that the game should reflect the principle that flying your ships is better than not flying them.

The more important questions, I think, really is (a) whether there's anything we can do about it (no), (b) whether there's anything FFG can do about it (almost certainly yes), and © what they should do about it. As I see it, KineticOperator's initial post says that casting aspersions on people's sportsmanship is beside the point: if we don't like the fact that a particular tactic is a viable route to winning games, the nature of the game needs to change in such a way that the tactic is no longer as attractive as its alternatives.

if we don't like the fact that a particular tactic is a viable route to winning games, the nature of the game needs to change in such a way that the tactic is no longer as attractive as its alternatives.

Or we need to accept it as being part of the game. That or find something else to do.

FFG could very well decide that fortressing or other such tactics is completely fine, and keeping within the spirit of the game. If they decide that (which I doubt they will) then we have a couple options the main two being either accept it for what it is, or find something else to do.

Even if we accept it for what it is, doesn't mean we have to use it. But it does mean that it's a option to consider when looking at how to win, and if you refuse to use it, it's because winning isn't the primary goal you have. Which again doesn't mean winning at all costs, only winning with in the rules as we have them.

It's not even a great tactic......

I was most surprised Richard's opponent let him get away with it.....

Now back to the topic in the OP :-)

My attitude is that I play to win. I don't necessarily care if I actually do win, as long as I tried my best to do so, and had a good game in the process.

Furthermore, I would see it as an insult to my opponent to not be playing my best against them. This is to the point where I've actually apologised to my opponent before now if I think my play may be substandard in some way (having just come off a night shift and not slept yet for example).

I suppose the above could be summed up as I play casual to win, even though it does sound like an oxymoron

The third option is to simply accept these things as part of the game and alter your mindset. The only reason they seem to be a problem is because you and your playgroup refuse to use them. If you did, you would quickly discover their counters and they would become a non-issue as they disappear from use. When you do see them from time to time, you won't even break stride as you pull out the counter and keep playing X-Wing. It won't appear to be any more unsporting than any other tactic, nor will it appear to be any more effective.

In the words of the article, X-Wing is a very deep game, without any truly degenerate aspects. Hopefully it stays that way. There really is no need to "fix" anything.

I think this article from the same site is also relevant, possibly even more relevant than the article in the OP: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned

As it says, when talking about what should be banned (whether explicitly or by social pressure to avoid doing it) the ban needs to be discrete, enforceable and warranted. So let's look at how these apply in X-Wing:

Discrete:

Fortress deployments: impossible to ban. There's no way to clearly define "fortress" in a way that includes the undesired strategies but doesn't ban anything else. For example, how many turns can you bump before it's a fortress? How many ships can you have participating? Do you have to do it in your own deployment area, or can you build the formation in the middle of the table after maneuvering for a few turns? Etc.

ACD phantoms: possible to ban. ACD is a single discrete card that can be removed from the game. If FFG says "ACD is banned" there's no ambiguity about what the ban covers.

Turret ships: impossible to ban in the way that people want. Yes, you could just ban all of the relevant cards, but is anyone really complaining about a naked ORS? The real issue is the heavily-upgraded Han/Dash/etc where a single super-ship is 2/3 of your list and dominates the game. But there's no way to define super-ship clearly. Is it when you put C-3P0 on it? What about if you put Chewbacca (crew) on instead of C-3P0? Etc.

Enforceable:

Fortresses: impossible to ban. The issue with fortress builds is all about player intent (deliberate bumping, intending to keep bumping for "too long"), not the actions on the table. You can't call a judge over and clearly demonstrate that a given formation is intended to be a long-term fortress instead of just stalling for a turn before breaking up and engaging.

ACD: possible to ban. If it's in your list you're kicked out of the tournament for cheating. No ambiguity at all.

Turret ships: possible to ban. If you can come up with a discrete list of cards (or combinations of cards) that are too powerful then there is no ambiguity about whether one of those cards (or combinations) is in your list.

Warranted:

Fortresses: not yet IMO. There just isn't enough experience with this yet, and previous fotress strategies have turned out to be mediocre gimmicks that rarely win games. There's a fun issue to be concerned about, but so far there's no clear evidence that fortress strategies will be anything more than an occasional surprise to exploit an unprepared opponent.

ACD: yes. I think at this point the metgame-warping effect of ACD phantoms is pretty well established. No other card has such a disproportionate effect on your available list choices or the strategy elements you're forced to include to counter it.

Turret ships: not yet IMO. They're probably an issue in the current metagame, but would they be overpowered in a metagame where people didn't feel pressured to take turrets to counter ACD phantoms and the lists which crush Han but lose to ACD phantoms were more common? The wave 3 metagame, where turret ships were present but far from dominating, suggests otherwise. Remember that fat Han hasn't really had much of an upgrade since the old days of HSF, C-3PO is only a fairly small improvement over (crew) Chewbacca.

Now, you can disagree with me on the ACD and turret examples, but whether those bans are justified isn't really the point. The purpose of these examples is to demonstrate the process for justifying a ban.

The third option is to simply accept these things as part of the game and alter your mindset. The only reason they seem to be a problem is because you and your playgroup refuse to use them. If you did, you would quickly discover their counters and they would become a non-issue as they disappear from use. When you do see them from time to time, you won't even break stride as you pull out the counter and keep playing X-Wing. It won't appear to be any more unsporting than any other tactic, nor will it appear to be any more effective.

Effectiveness should not be the only consideration for addressing an abusive tactic. Effectiveness should imply action - that is, effective exploits should draw action, but that doesn't mean an ineffective exploit should be immune.

Exploits make for bad games. Nobody is ever going to walk away from an exploit-centered game thinking it was enjoyable, or awesome, or probably even interesting, regardless of who wins. That should be enough of a problem to warrant fixing it, whether it's showing up at the top table of Worlds or against that noob who really doesn't know any better.

IF and only IF you agree turrets need fixing, and I don't, make them R1 - 2 period.

"All turret mounted weapons, unless specifically stated on an upgrade card are considered to have a range of 1 and 2"

Covers everything.

Again, nothing to do with "Playing to Win"

if we don't like the fact that a particular tactic is a viable route to winning games, the nature of the game needs to change in such a way that the tactic is no longer as attractive as its alternatives.

Or we need to accept it as being part of the game. That or find something else to do.

FFG could very well decide that fortressing or other such tactics is completely fine...

Yeah, absolutely. FFG could look at the "problem" and decide it's not big enough to make waves over; doing nothing is well within the range of potential responses.

I'm still thinking in terms of the application of "Playing to Win" to the Olympic badminton case. The immediate response from... basically everyone, really, was that it was a disgrace to the sport and that the athletes should be ashamed of themselves. The former was true: it's ridiculous to see people at the highest level of competition falling all over themselves trying to underperform the other team. And it was technically illegal.

The point of the application of the "Play to Win" philosophy--which, remember, is coming from someone with a fair amount of experience in game design--is that if you have to enforce a rule that says "you're not allowed to forfeit a match, and you also can't perform less well than we know you can", you've already screwed up by creating a system where it can be advantageous to lose. Given that you're inside such a system, blaming the strategy or the people taking advantage of it is at best irrelevant.

David Sirlin said that the IOC should basically either change the tournament structure so that winning was always an advantage, change the tournament structure so that teams couldn't know whether or not winning was an advantage, or allow the nominal winning team of a match to determine whether the match would be treated as a win or a loss by that team. In any of those cases, you've dealt with the root of the problem rather than trying to slap its symptoms out of existence one by one.

Focusing on X-wing, again, we have a few tactics and game elements that the community, or at least a portion of the community, doesn't like. The "Play to Win" philosophy says that we shouldn't get upset about those tactics and game elements; instead, we should either accept that they're part of the game (as you say), or find a way to address them that isn't just a rule saying "no fortresses".

People are arguing the wrong points. The other thread asked the question "is it good for the game". Not whether it's legal or even good sportsmanship.

I simply think it's bad for the game and should be addressed.

I don't have a problem with people playing to the letter of the law in a tournament setting. I simply think that in future tournaments this tactical loophole should be closed.

I believe everything needs to be evaluated within the context of the setting of the game you are playing. If I am playing with my 8-year-old on my kitchen table I am flying a lot more casual than if I was in a tournament. If I am playing some noobs on game night, I am flying experimental lists with a single purpose in mind (learning to fly a ship, trying a combo out, BSing with pals while drinking a margarita, etc..) while not too terribly concerned with winning. However, If I show up to a tournament, I expect everyone to bring their A-game and do everything within the rules of the game to win.

I am a naturally competitive person. Usually when I play a game, regardless of what it is, I play to win. I don't cheat and I can't stand players who do. That is different from playing to win. My wife refuses to play games with me because I play to win. When I played Axis and Allies, Fortress America, and Shogun with my dad and sisters, we played to win. When I first beat my dad in Fortress America, he did not give it to me. I took it. I earned it.

As someone who coaches small children (7 to 10 year-olds) in baseball and other sports, the playing to win mentality is one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. Schools and society here in the USA have started doing the whole "we don't keep score" thing to a ridiculous level and even equate it to bullying. Once kids stop thinking that winning is a bad thing, they really blossom.

Take it away Herm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abThcjwuW4w