I noticed that the unintended tactic of the fortress was compared to the unintended wording of Lone Wolf. And I don't think that's fair.

There is a massive difference between;

- A written rule/upgrade that does nothing at all.

- A written rule/upgrade that functions differently from what the designers intended.

- A written rule/upgrade that functions as intended but can also be used in a way that wasn't conceived of when it was designed or tested.

You can not use one to make any meaningful comments about the other.

Playing to win uses the last option, and sometimes the middle option, but never the first.

Neither extreme is workable, and neither is going to be pure enough to avoid disagreement.

I agree. But I also think that's the whole point of having a judge, to deal with cases where the two sides can't agree and so a 3rd party has to step in and break the impasse.

But given the two options, play RAW to the best of our ability and let the TO deal with disagreements or else the "I call cheese" rule... I think RAW is clearly the prefered method.

Also, it's not like we're speaking pure RAW here, like what I saw often in 40k or Flames of War*, we're talking about RAW with touch of 3rd party RAI. Because FFG does give the TO the authority to make ruling on the spot... Even if those ruling don't agree with FFG for that matter.

Lets take the turret issue you pointed out. You could try to make that argument, but if the TO over rules you, then that's that. No matter how technically correct you are, the TO has ruled and that's the end of it. You either abide by the decision or leave the event. So it's not really either extreme honestly. But perhaps FFG needs to make that clearer or something.

If I were a TO and I saw something that I felt was not keeping with the spirit of the game, and one person asked for a ruling, I'd have no issue with telling someone that despite how they twisted the rules, they can't do that.

* I got into a rather heated discussion on the Flames of War boards over an issue like that. I don't remember the whole thing, but effectively with how the rules were written, if you park an commander with in 1" of an cannon, and wish to shoot at the unit with a tank, the cannons, the commanders, ect... were all part of a Unit in that game. You had to target the commander with the tank's main gun, rather than the cannon, which was much less effective. If however the commander was 1 1/16" away, then you could target the gun instead...

I actually really hate that TO clause. I think it'd be one of the stinkiest experiences every if it ever happened to me that a TO makes some sort of personal declaration against the rules.

Okay we have now reached the point where x-wing and poker on have been compared. Our work us done here, we can all leave now.

It was my comment about these ships not having white and green maneuvers. And I never received a response to that point. The evident answer is that they were never intended to come to a full stop. It is a bad strategy anyway as the proponents have pointed out, what is the reserve to calling it a ****** bag move to exploit a rules error?

It's not the fact that it is not forbidden from the rules or that FFG acknowledges that it is not forbidden by the rules, hardly a shinning endorsement, or that it is an ineffective tactic that would seldom be used. The point of issue is the mentality of thinking it permissible to exploit such an error. And if you must take any advantage not forbidden by rules oversight, then just where is your ethical line in the sand? Perhaps you have none and lack any moral integrity at all. That is what it appears to the rest if us when you champion such a topic as this. It is not a game issue, but a player issue.

Okay we have now reached the point where x-wing and poker on have been compared. Our work us done here, we can all leave now.

It was my comment about these ships not having white and green maneuvers. And I never received a response to that point. The evident answer is that they were never intended to come to a full stop. It is a bad strategy anyway as the proponents have pointed out, what is the reserve to calling it a ****** bag move to exploit a rules error?

It's not the fact that it is not forbidden from the rules or that FFG acknowledges that it is not forbidden by the rules, hardly a shinning endorsement, or that it is an ineffective tactic that would seldom be used. The point of issue is the mentality of thinking it permissible to exploit such an error. And if you must take any advantage not forbidden by rules oversight, then just where is your ethical line in the sand? Perhaps you have none and lack any moral integrity at all. That is what it appears to the rest if us when you champion such a topic as this. It is not a game issue, but a player issue.

How is FFG acknowledging something as a legitimate strategy not an endorsement? It may have been an unintended consequence of the rules, but if it was an 'error' they would have fixed it.

It was my comment about these ships not having white and green maneuvers. And I never received a response to that point. The evident answer is that they were never intended to come to a full stop.

The only thing that shows is that those ships were never meant to come to a full stop on their own. Obviously when the rules were written the idea that ships without a 0 move on their dial could potentially move 0 WAS there. If ship A crashes into the front of ship B on an angle and ship B had a 1 straight on the dial, ship B doesn't move. That would have definitely come up during play testing because it's something I see happening when every new player plays the game.

I'm sure the perpetual stop didn't come up in play testing, but I don't think anyone would argue that. To say that "Ships were never meant to move 0 because they don't have it on their dial" is just completely untrue. They were, just only once or twice and only with the help of other ships.

And if you must take any advantage not forbidden by rules oversight, then just where is your ethical line in the sand? Perhaps you have none and lack any moral integrity at all. That is what it appears to the rest if us when you champion such a topic as this. It is not a game issue, but a player issue.

And this is how you appear to the rest of us, zealously championing the ONE TRUE WAY to play the game, according to your very narrow scope of thematic viability. Where is the morality and integrity in you brandishing statements like "**** bag move" because you disagree with someone.

Why is it that when some 'never seen before' tactic comes out, there's a portion of the population that say "Wow, cool, I never thought of doing that" and another portion that say "It offends my sense of ______, kill it with fire"

So. Who learned something?

If you don't follow their rules they'll scoop up their ships and leave.

I don't agree completely. In that case it's up to both people to decide, otherwise there isn't a game. Which may mean both sides lose out.

If I sit down across the table from you and pull out Fat Han or Whisper Swarm and you tell me you won't play against those lists, but that's the list I want to play. We've reached an impasse where either no game happens so it doesn't matter what either of us think, or we work out some sort of compromise.

You know, there are going to be days where if that happens I might just decline. Nothing on your for wanting to play. But there is a point where scrubs like me that you might meet may decide its not worth their time.

An example in Starcraft is being killed by a "blind cheese" something so early in the game and done without any knowledge that it simply requires dedication to do.

I may have about a 30 second window to counter it, I may have to play for 10 minutes a grueling uphill slog to beat it if i dont, but there is a third option: I can always start a new game if I lost the last one. And that's an option I take a lot in casual play. As a thought game, I consider it a chance gamble: 1. in a real tournament, my opponent usually only do these once. 2. I conserve resources of life, time and energy by simply letting it go.

I know well enough that if my opponent does it at an unusual point in the set that I should scout to prevent it again, in the case he does the annoying double cheese.

What makes me a scrub is having different priorities for the game too. my number one priority isnt to win either. i do want to win most of the time, but I'm okay with losing the rest. I'd rather have fun while playing and winning and I'd also reather not use up precious time to beat something that has a small percentage of the expected field of play. So yes, I guess I'm a scrub.

When the time comes and I find a game that will truly last me a lifetime, I'll put the time to learn it.

So. Who learned something?

I learned that X-wing is miles and miles more complex than something like $40k, but i.t.o of discussing it on the internet...well the internet is still the internet

Okay we have now reached the point where x-wing and poker on have been compared. Our work us done here, we can all leave now.

It was my comment about these ships not having white and green maneuvers. And I never received a response to that point. The evident answer is that they were never intended to come to a full stop. It is a bad strategy anyway as the proponents have pointed out, what is the reserve to calling it a ****** bag move to exploit a rules error?

It's not the fact that it is not forbidden from the rules or that FFG acknowledges that it is not forbidden by the rules, hardly a shinning endorsement, or that it is an ineffective tactic that would seldom be used. The point of issue is the mentality of thinking it permissible to exploit such an error. And if you must take any advantage not forbidden by rules oversight, then just where is your ethical line in the sand? Perhaps you have none and lack any moral integrity at all. That is what it appears to the rest if us when you champion such a topic as this. It is not a game issue, but a player issue.

How is FFG acknowledging something as a legitimate strategy not an endorsement? It may have been an unintended consequence of the rules, but if it was an 'error' they would have fixed it.

If you and everybody else are going to quote that interview time after time will you at least acknowledge the part where they say that they're going to keep an eye on it if it becomes a problem? And obviously some people have a problem with it now, so now after such a high profile incident? Give the designers some time to examine it and decide whether or not it needs fixing and how to fix it.

It was my comment about these ships not having white and green maneuvers. And I never received a response to that point. The evident answer is that they were never intended to come to a full stop.

The only thing that shows is that those ships were never meant to come to a full stop on their own. Obviously when the rules were written the idea that ships without a 0 move on their dial could potentially move 0 WAS there. If ship A crashes into the front of ship B on an angle and ship B had a 1 straight on the dial, ship B doesn't move. That would have definitely come up during play testing because it's something I see happening when every new player plays the game.

I'm sure the perpetual stop didn't come up in play testing, but I don't think anyone would argue that. To say that "Ships were never meant to move 0 because they don't have it on their dial" is just completely untrue. They were, just only once or twice and only with the help of other ships.

Ummmm...... so then why are you saying that they should be able to sit in one spot indefinitely if even you don't think they were meant to do so?

So. Who learned something?

I learned:

1) Someone who wasn't me, used a legal tactic to beat someone who isn't me.

2) I'm a scrub, and damned proud of it!

3) Because I'm a scrub (see lesson 2) and I wasn't involved (see lesson 1), the ol' give a crap tank is kind of running on empty.

4) You should look both ways before crossing the street. Seriously. It's just good advice.

You know, there are going to be days where if that happens I might just decline.

That's completely fair. There is a point I think where two people shouldn't play against each other. IF your only interest is playing thematic goofy lists and my only interest is crushing the other guy then it's unlikely we'll have an enjoyable game at all.

I won't likely have much fun beating a list that isn't designed to win and you're not going to like being beaten by someone who plays like that.

It's like a emperors Magic the Gathering I once played. The other 3 guys built decks around a infinite turn combo, my team not knowing what they were going to do built 3 speed goblin decks. Mind you this was back in the days of Ice Ages I think... Well we crushed them, we crushed them bad. It was uggggly. So after the 3rd time of that, we agreed to not attack so they could pull off the combo. The firs time was kind of funny because it was so lopsided but after that it just wasn't fun for either side.

If you and everybody else are going to quote that interview time after time will you at least acknowledge the part where they say that they're going to keep an eye on it if it becomes a problem

Pretty sure most if not all of us have in fact done that. I even pointed out that they had 3 months from the time of that interview to do something if they had wished. We all know full well that they may do something about it if they want to, so there's no reason to keep pointing out that they're keeping an eye on it.

If you and everybody else are going to quote that interview time after time will you at least acknowledge the part where they say that they're going to keep an eye on it if it becomes a problem

Pretty sure most if not all of us have in fact done that. I even pointed out that they had 3 months from the time of that interview to do something if they had wished. We all know full well that they may do something about it if they want to, so there's no reason to keep pointing out that they're keeping an eye on it.

Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now, so now is definitely the time for them to examine it again since its cause such a 40+ page kerfluffle. And since we all know they may do something about it if they want to, why do people keep bringing up that interview? They're just leaving out the part that contradicts part of their argument. There's a big difference between them saying "We've examined it and have found no issue," and "We've examined it and have found no issue, yet, but we'll be keeping an eye on it."

You're one of the few who at least acknowledges it.

Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now

How high profile it is doesn't matter. What matters is if it's bad for the game or not. They shouldn't decide things like this based on viewership.

Yeah, this issue has existed for some time. In fact, Richard's build is far, far from the most abusive version that exists. But, worlds match and getting a really lucky shot = abusive combo that will propagate to ruin the game.

Even if it hadn't happened with the Millenium Fortress...

It's like a emperors Magic the Gathering I once played. The other 3 guys built decks around a infinite turn combo, my team not knowing what they were going to do built 3 speed goblin decks. Mind you this was back in the days of Ice Ages I think... Well we crushed them, we crushed them bad. It was uggggly. So after the 3rd time of that, we agreed to not attack so they could pull off the combo. The firs time was kind of funny because it was so lopsided but after that it just wasn't fun for either side.

But in that case wouldn't you say something like 'well....clearly you brought a knife to a gun fight. Want to reach into your bag and try a new list (or deck or whatever)?" - instead of saying "well ok, you can stab me a couple times and see if I die, but then I'll probably fire and drop you anyway".

deck and list building is part of the strategy too is it not? But I see your point here - sounds like it was a casual thing so you did the appropriate thing. I'm not saying you should have laughed and called them dumb for bringing something to the table that could never work. To rephrase, if it were me, I probably would have said let's both try something different instead of handicapping my own tactic. But maybe that isn't as easy to do with Magic on the fly as it is with X-Wing.

TL:DR - you did the right thing, wondering if there is another right thing to do as well

But in that case wouldn't you say something like 'well....clearly you brought a knife to a gun fight.

Well... There's a bit more to the story.

We did offer to let them change decks. But one of the people playing was convinced the only reason they lost was because he wasn't across the table from me. He seemed to think I was the best player out of the 3, which was maybe true, but if so it was only by a very, very small amount. All of us were pretty good.

So they changed sides and gave it another run. It amused my team when I beat the other Lt even faster that game. He was kinda a ass about it, having a bit of a fit about how poorly the other guy played. So I didn't show any mercy.

After that they basically asked us to let them pull off the combo, because they spent like $25 or so bucks to buy the cards for it, so we let them.

Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now

How high profile it is doesn't matter. What matters is if it's bad for the game or not. They shouldn't decide things like this based on viewership.

How high profile it is DOES matter. The more people see it and are aware of it the more likely it'll be used. What happens if this tactic does begin to propagate and sees widespread use? Previously it was limited to Falcons and Lambdas. Now the general community sees that just about any ship profile can use it. Don't say that just because it hasn't been used much in the past means it WON'T be used much in the future. That's incredibly short sighted.

The designers looked at "Castling" back at Gencon, decided that it wasn't a big issue then but they'd put it on the backburner. I'm sure they have much more pressing issues to handle. But do you really think that they won't at least take some time to look at it now that it showed up at Worlds? I'd much rather them take a look at it and say, "Nah, we don't feel like it'll impact the game any further." or "We feel like this impacts the game negatively and will be making some changes in the future." than to just ignore it entirely like other game companies tend to do.

How high profile it is DOES matter.

No it doesn't, because the only thing that matters is if it's bad for the game or not. If it's bad for the game then it's bad if one person does it or a thousand do it.

What happens if this tactic does begin to propagate and sees widespread use?

Then a lot of people will find out just how bad of a tactic it really is, and stop using it.

It seems that there may be confusion around the concept of the general forum community and the actual community of players. I'd wager that the actual community is far larger, so what may seem to be a big debate thriving on the forums actually has little impact on the community at large. The community representation on the internet forum is fractional compared to the player population. All we've seen so far are the same 20 or so voices over the span of 40 pages. And, more importantly, zero consensus.

I would not be so quick to label this debate in these terms, "Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now, so now is definitely the time for them to examine it again since its cause such a 40+ page kerfluffle." Reaching 40+ pages on a forum should never be the catalyst for creating new rules, because there is no direct correlation between that number and the disatisfaction of the entire community of Xwing players. In fact, if this were true, then the Imperials would have already had their huge ship hand delivered. Obviously, despite a thread consisting of about 60 pages, this hasn't happened.

It seems that there may be confusion around the concept of the general forum community and the actual community of players. I'd wager that the actual community is far larger, so what may seem to be a big debate thriving on the forums actually has little impact on the community at large. The community representation on the internet forum is fractional compared to the player population. All we've seen so far are the same 20 or so voices over the span of 40 pages. And, more importantly, zero consensus.

I would not be so quick to label this debate in these terms, "Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now, so now is definitely the time for them to examine it again since its cause such a 40+ page kerfluffle." Reaching 40+ pages on a forum should never be the catalyst for creating new rules, because there is no direct correlation between that number and the disatisfaction of the entire community of Xwing players. In fact, if this were true, then the Imperials would have already had their huge ship hand delivered. Obviously, despite a thread consisting of about 60 pages, this hasn't happened.

Exactly my view.

This forum, great though it is seems to primarily attract tournament minded players and those very keen to have things carved in stone with regards to rulings over a contested issue.

I love being part of this forum but the focus does appear to be the 100 point, six asteroid tournament death match.

I can probably count the amount of times i've seen scenario play discussed on here this month on the fingers of one hand.

But...

Its not representative of the player base as a whole IMO.

I have about 20-30 people I play xwing against and I'm the *only* one i know of on these forums from our gaming group (Beeston, Nottingham in case anyone else is out there...)

The rest of the guys just rock up , have a casual game, they dont care about the meta , they dont care about fat hans because they are not playing against strangers trying to win a prize or kudos... we're usually playing in the pub over a pint and a sandwich.

I'm not knocking this forum, i'm not knocking those on it. Many of you i've become online 'friends' with and a lot of you i really enjoy reading your thoughts and views on this great game but if you think about it objectively the majority of player just cant be tournament and organised play minded people.

Think about the amount of units sold. It must be *hundreds of thousands* , if most people were organised play types then every event would sell out the moment tickets went on sale.

Its like the UK 40k organised play scene. On average about 200 places to a GT or a heat for it. They sold out pretty fast, usually a day or two, never more than a week but there were many more players out there in gaming stores, at home etc than OP players. I know this because I knew GWs sales figures at the time and i also knew that it was the same 200 people (ish) at every event. You'd get a few new faces but on the whole i could have put money on who would be attending, and not just the top table types. Because it became a community within a community.

Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now

How high profile it is doesn't matter. What matters is if it's bad for the game or not. They shouldn't decide things like this based on viewership.

Greater viewership means greater exposure, greater exposure means greater emulation.

It seems that there may be confusion around the concept of the general forum community and the actual community of players. I'd wager that the actual community is far larger, so what may seem to be a big debate thriving on the forums actually has little impact on the community at large. The community representation on the internet forum is fractional compared to the player population. All we've seen so far are the same 20 or so voices over the span of 40 pages. And, more importantly, zero consensus.

I would not be so quick to label this debate in these terms, "Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now, so now is definitely the time for them to examine it again since its cause such a 40+ page kerfluffle." Reaching 40+ pages on a forum should never be the catalyst for creating new rules, because there is no direct correlation between that number and the disatisfaction of the entire community of Xwing players. In fact, if this were true, then the Imperials would have already had their huge ship hand delivered. Obviously, despite a thread consisting of about 60 pages, this hasn't happened.

This is full of wrong. First, the forum community DOES matter, because it represents the most active, passionate slice of players. People not active on the forums are less likely to care one way or another, or they'd be here making their voices heard.

Second, it's a little disingenuous to compare balancing gameplay based in part on community feedback with the design, testing, manufacture, and release of a large, expensive game piece. Imperial players know they're going to get goodies too; they're just really impatient about it.

It seems that there may be confusion around the concept of the general forum community and the actual community of players. I'd wager that the actual community is far larger, so what may seem to be a big debate thriving on the forums actually has little impact on the community at large. The community representation on the internet forum is fractional compared to the player population. All we've seen so far are the same 20 or so voices over the span of 40 pages. And, more importantly, zero consensus.

I would not be so quick to label this debate in these terms, "Because it hadn't been an high profile issue until now, so now is definitely the time for them to examine it again since its cause such a 40+ page kerfluffle." Reaching 40+ pages on a forum should never be the catalyst for creating new rules, because there is no direct correlation between that number and the disatisfaction of the entire community of Xwing players. In fact, if this were true, then the Imperials would have already had their huge ship hand delivered. Obviously, despite a thread consisting of about 60 pages, this hasn't happened.

This is full of wrong. First, the forum community DOES matter, because it represents the most active, passionate slice of players. People not active on the forums are less likely to care one way or another, or they'd be here making their voices heard.

What if it represents a very vocal minority?

its a possibility.

Also 'design by committee' is usually guaranteed to be unsatisfying.

FFG pay their designers a wage to come up with new, exciting stuff, fix issues playtesting didnt reveal.

I can't see tham going 'dave on the internet says we've got it all wrong, better sack everyone and start again'

Oh I suspect it IS a vocal minority - as in, the majority of casual players don't care, so it's the vocal minority of dedicated players doing most of the talking one way or another. If there's one thing our own history should teach us - think, civil rights in America - it's that being in the minority doesn't always mean you're wrong, or shouldn't be listened to.

And no - I'm not saying this is an issue on the scale of civil rights. Don't be that guy. I'm simply saying that it's a mistake to dismiss the power or importance of the vocal minority sometimes.

I read the linked article in the first post and I think its a horrible article. If you are writing an article to try to convince people "Play to Win" is the right way to play, why would you refer to people who have an opposing viewpoint with a derogatory term? It seems he wants to convince people that already agree with him or shame people into agreeing with him. That makes it come off as more of a rant than a serious article. The point I agree with is that you should use strategies/tactics that allow you to win in a game, but thats kind of a weird statement since its an assumption that you will be doing that in every game anyhow. I think he built a poor case starting from an

I did like the OPs stay on topic image. Its really cool. As a community, I think we could use a little more "stay on topic" as people seem to meander very far from what threads were suppose to be about. I know that conversations often meander off of their original topics, but on a forum it seems just as easy to start a new thread if you want to pull a K-turn (or even a boost after a bank).

Back to the article, the author pigeon holes people into weird categories. I mean if someone is using throws against me and I would like them to do it less, I might try a bit of verbal trickery to attempt to get them to use it less (they shouldn't fall for that tactic, but it may be worth the try). Using verbal trickery could very well be seen as "Playing to Win" and not using it could in itself be a mental block leading to what the author thinks of as "Scrub" behavior.

I reject that you have to chose a one way or the other. I "Play to Win" and "Fly Causal" at the same time. Its not even a 50/50 split, its 100% on both. The only time I don't is when I am teaching the game. At that point, I am "Teaching the Game".

I also want to point out there is a difference between being a "scrub" and thinking the rule set in a game could use some tweaking to be made better or more well balanced. I don't think any of us think X-Wing is perfect, most of us think somethings can be changed for the better. You can play to win and think a particular item needs to change. You just roll with it until it does.

Oh and as far as fortressing goes (since we have already gone there), I have no strong opinion either way, as long as its legal I have no issue with people using it. If it is changed to illegal, I would have no issues either. I probably won't use it since I do not find it fun and there is always another way to win. Might as well go for what is fun and gives me the win.