I never told the new comer that he was not welcomed. I mirrored his comment. If my comment is taken as not wanting new players then his is equally taken as not wanting veteran players to remain playing.

I'm really not sure where you're getting that. If no veteran players remained, I wouldn't have gotten my butt handed to me by a Fat Han, and I wouldn't have ever thought about how I would counter something like that in-game. That, in turn, made me a little bit better. I don't use any of the strategies you're bemoaning, I'm stubbornly committed to A-Wings, and will probably not ever get to the point where I'm good enough to go to Worlds. And that's okay. I'll probably never be able to roll a 300 point game, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying hitting the lanes.

My original point was that it can be discouraging seeing someone who's played the game for a while so gleefully predict its downfall because of something he doesn't like in the game. ...But, that I'm going to take it with a grain of salt because the game is more enjoyable to me than the win. The two are nice together, and not mutually exclusive - but I'm enjoying being at the table more than I am worried about the collective expectations of a minority of forum members crashing down in flames.

The way I see it, it's a game first, competition second. It's only worth my time if it's fun, as my free time is extremely valuable as well as limited.

That's fine, you could go to a tournament even one as high end as Worlds, and have a fun time.

But what you can not do is expect everyone else to have the same priorities as you, especially in a case like the single elimination round of the World Championship. It's completely possible and even likely you'd run into someone who would take advantage of every mistake you make, show no mercy whatsoever so they can make it to the next round.

They could do that while still being a completely pleasant person both in general and to play against. They could make jokes, offer advice either during or after the match, and generally help create a fun environment, while still playing to win.

This same person could also have a completely different way of playing at the weekly LGS game night, and care a great deal less about winning, because in that situation there isn't much at stake.

It is the epitome of not flying casual to expect someone else to abide by your unwritten rules and opinions on how the game is meant to be played.

There are some on the other side of this fence that I know to be of good character, others not so much...

But someone please explain to me how the intentional ramming your own vessels into one another should be accepted as okay in a game that represents space fighter combat? Maybe we should exchange our nicely done ships for a bunch of blocks, that would make far more sense.

Just because something is not specified as being illegal under the rules does not mean it is right. It is nothing more than an exploitation of a loophole.

Don't attach any terminology De jour to this under the guise of "casual, competitive, shaming, or sportsmanship. " There are no conditions to right and wrong, you don't get to pick and choose at the ethical salad bar of life.

Build whatever fleet you want but when you start purposefully crashing your spaceships into one another as a viable tactic, it's time to walk away.

Technically the ships are flying over each other.

Also self bumping is critical for blocking and the lambda.

And everyone's opinion on fun is different. If I saw Richard's set up, I would take it as a challenge and a puzzle to figure out. I understand those that wouldn't like it. But, i don't expect everyone to follow my thought processes on this game.

Also, can we at least wait to see what Autothrusters do before we start lauding them as a keystone of FFG design to fix issues?

I could have sworn you weren't new here, and yet...

No, we can't wait.

Hope does spring eternal...

It's a bad article, written by someone trying to justify why nobody wants to play with them anymore. It seems to be saying: 'I'm not to blame for nobody turning up to my games nights or tournaments, it must be their fault! Don't those 'scrubs' know that I have a disorder that compulses me to play games just for the sweet dopamine injection I get for winning?'

I mean, literally all of his anecdotes read: 'so I was just playing against my friend (he's such a scrub lol) and he was all 'why did you even invite me here if you're just gonna press x over and over until you win?' and i was all 'l2p scrub' and then he left and now nobody plays games with me any more (must all be scrubs lol)'

Welcome back Ribban.

Welcome back Ribban.

That's really clever, thanks for accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a troll. That's a really welcoming attitude that the X-wing community needs more of. Gold star

Theres a big difference between the occasional self bump for positioning and Fortressing. The first involves clever timing of your PS and move dials to grant yourself positioning not normally available, but still at least involves you moving on the **** board. The second involves exploitation of a loophole to allow ships to perform a maneuver that were never designed for it game wise. The shuttle pays for its 0 maneuver and to claim that since it can do one, EVERY ship should be able to do one is ludicrous.

Welcome back Ribban.

That's really clever, thanks for accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a troll. That's a really welcoming attitude that the X-wing community needs more of. Gold star

"Oh man, hes made an account with few posts and disagrees with me, must be Ribann." is an attitude that's starting to pop up here recently. Im sure if i had made my account in the last few weeks or so I would have been accused of being Ribann at least 2 or 3 times already.

But someone please explain to me how the intentional ramming your own vessels into one another should be accepted as okay in a game that represents space fighter combat? Maybe we should exchange our nicely done ships for a bunch of blocks, that would make far more sense.

Blocking is indeed a break with the game's theme. The problem--or, rather, "problem" is that the game has to handle models that overlap in 2D space even though they wouldn't in 3D space, and the initial designers chose the simplest possible way to do it.

Just because something is not specified as being illegal under the rules does not mean it is right. It is nothing more than an exploitation of a loophole.

I think we should all Fly Casual, and we should be ambassadors for a game we all like. Anyone walking by a table should think the models look cool, the game looks interesting, and the players seem like people you wouldn't mind spending an hour with (and potentially losing to).

With that said, if you play against me I'm going to be trying to win. I'll be using the best list I can come up with (although it probably won't be the forum's flavor of the week), and I'll expect you to bring your best to the table as well. I'll expect you to know the rules, to stay within them, and to do everything you can within those rules to win.

I don't talk about this a lot because I hate the stereotypical Internet Tough Guy, but I'm also a martial artist. In a tournament sparring match (at least, for AAU and AJKA karate), there are a few things that are illegal: you can't strike to the spine or below the belt line, you can't make substantial contact to the head, you can't step out of the ring, and you can't turn your back on your opponent. [EDIT: You also have to wear gloves.]

Everything else is fair game, because if I don't use every tool I can think of to defend myself against my opponent, it's disrespectful to him. It's saying, essentially, that I can beat you with one hand behind my back.

To me, that's all the link in the OP is really saying. Competitors come to win; someone who intentionally handicaps himself or herself isn't trying to win, and that's at best odd and at worst an act of disrespect. Showing up intending to win doesn't mean you want to win at any cost, or that you intend to be unpleasant to your peers, but it does mean that if we're paired together both you and I have implicitly agreed that we're going to try to force the other into a losing position.

The bottom line is that if one of us isn't doing that, we're breaking that implicit agreement in a way that reflects poorly on us and probably distorts the assumptions that underlie the tournament format.

***

I'll close this wall of text with an example from the Denver Regionals. In my last game, I was paired with Hothie, and neither of our records were going to be good enough to make the cut. As it turned out his list hard-countered mine in a couple of ways, and with some help from his dice he flattened me.

He had a choice, when it became obvious which way the game was going--he could have backed off, adopted a weaker strategy, made it feel like more of a challenge, and won without running up the score. It wouldn't have mattered, because nothing was on the line for him. But that would have been fake, and since we're both experienced players we both would have known it. Instead, he continued to "exploit" the fact that he could ignore a number of my upgrades, and "exploit" the fact that I was locked into a board position and deployment that weren't working for me at all, and continued to kick the snot out of me.

And, most importantly: because we're grownups, we were able to laugh about it (albeit with some facepalming on my part), shake hands, and walk away hoping to see each other again soon. To me, that's what it means to Fly Casual and Play to Win.

Attacking someone for using a perfectly legal strategy because you (meaning in general, not DoubleNot7 in particular) think it's less fun--even if it's somehow objectively less fun!--is saying they should pull their punches because you don't like the combination they're throwing. It's fakery in service of making you feel better, and it's not actually doing anyone a favor.

If some un-fun strategy is genuinely the best way to win, or even to win against a certain kind of list, we should expect to see that borne out in actual games, and we can probably expect FFG to take some kind of action. If it's not the best way to win, then it's not really a problem at all.

But either way, claiming that playing any legal strategy is somehow a moral or ethical failing simply because you don't like it is unproductive.

Welcome back Ribban.

That's really clever, thanks for accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a troll. That's a really welcoming attitude that the X-wing community needs more of. Gold star

Then don't post baseless and agressive statements.

I don't even care about you disagreeing with me, but when all you say is "it's about one dude, who was a deck, so noone wanted to play with him. the end" when trying to get involved in a discussion, well, you are either shitposting because you don't know better, or you are just a troll baiting. Good luck acting as a victim tho, it may gain you some sympathy points from naiver people.

Then don't post baseless and agressive statements.

I don't even care about you disagreeing with me, but when all you say is "it's about one dude, who was a deck, so noone wanted to play with him. the end" when trying to get involved in a discussion, well, you are either shitposting because you don't know better, or you are just a troll baiting. Good luck acting as a victim tho, it may gain you some sympathy points from naiver people.

This discussion has been had, I was just posting my take on the article, based on my experiences with people who share a similar mindset (and my own experiences with being that guy).

And who's the one making baseless and aggressive statements by accusing me of being forum troll so bad his name is a synonym for 'trolling shitposter' in the X-wing community?

But either way, claiming that playing any legal strategy is somehow a moral or ethical failing simply because you don't like it is unproductive.

I'd like to add that FFG has said that the fortress tactic is legit. So all these appeals to authority simply fall flat, because the only people who have the authority to make that call, have done so.

Calling a tactic that FFG has said is legit, is in fact an exploit is simply false, and trying to make someone feel bad for doing so is the antithesis of fly casual.

What? You post baseless and INCREDIBLY aggressive statements all the time Dreadstar. On the other thread you jumped in out of nowhere, attacked me as the sole cause of this entire mess, and called me a "dice rolling scrub". Like i said there, go wash off your hypocrisy.

and called me a "dice rolling scrub".

"Who's scruffy looking?"

I make a motion to replace the term 'scrub' with 'nerfherder'

Any seconds?

Instead, he continued to "exploit" the fact that he could ignore a number of my upgrades, and "exploit" the fact that I was locked into a board position and deployment that weren't working for me at all, and continued to kick the snot out of me.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

At the very least, you're using it here as a verb - which is fine in the context you're using it - when the other side is using it as a noun. They're very different things.

What? You post baseless and INCREDIBLY aggressive statements all the time Dreadstar. On the other thread you jumped in out of nowhere, attacked me as the sole cause of this entire mess, and called me a "dice rolling scrub". Like i said there, go wash off your hypocrisy.

Aggressive maybe, sometimes, when people short minded just try to force their perspective and expectations unto others, or they will call them unsport/pricks/your pick... i get hot tempered, like you were doing past threads, baseless nope.

Instead, he continued to "exploit" the fact that he could ignore a number of my upgrades, and "exploit" the fact that I was locked into a board position and deployment that weren't working for me at all, and continued to kick the snot out of me.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

At the very least, you're using it here as a verb - which is fine in the context you're using it - when the other side is using it as a noun. They're very different things.

*edited because my statement was wrong*

Instead, he continued to "exploit" the fact that he could ignore a number of my upgrades, and "exploit" the fact that I was locked into a board position and deployment that weren't working for me at all, and continued to kick the snot out of me.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

At the very least, you're using it here as a verb - which is fine in the context you're using it - when the other side is using it as a noun. They're very different things.

...what? When you verb-exploit a loophole in the rules, you're using a noun-exploit. They're not all that different.

In any case, my point was that I lost badly because my opponent continued using strategies that were effective, and I used "exploit" to underscore the fact that the difference between a legal, effective strategy and an "exploit" is whether the person doing the describing likes the strategy.

Or, to put it another way, I think the only important distinctions are between strategies that are permitted (i.e., legal) and those that aren't, and between those that are effective and those that aren't. To get us back to the topic at hand: if a strategy is both permitted and effective, and it also causes a negative play experience, that's a problem with the game--not a problem with the person who uses the strategy.

...what? When you verb-exploit a loophole in the rules, you're using a noun-exploit. They're not all that different.

In any case, my point was that I lost badly because my opponent continued using strategies that were effective, and I used "exploit" to underscore the fact that the difference between a legal, effective strategy and an "exploit" is whether the person doing the describing likes the strategy.

You can exploit a weakness without it being an exploit. They are very different things.

You're one of those guys who thought Johnny was the real hero in Karate Kid, weren't you?

Good post and discussion. As far as I can see, nothing in this game so far has been overpowered, or at least built without counters. Phantom and Fat Han can be frustrating when they get into their ideal positions, but definitely nothing totally broken. More so, new ships and upgrades have changed some good things to "average" and some "ok" things to good. Heck, pre wave 4 I didnt think id EVER see a Falcon win World's. I was certain that the swarm was pretty king. But look how things have shaken up now...

As far as placing new rules on playstyles, I don't think changing the game rules is the right answer. It is about adapting and figuring out a way to win, or heck, even just USING that tactic.

Changing the rules might be a good idea to a large group but we must consider ALL aspects of the change. With "Fortressing", for example, the "good" that one group of players are considering will be "harmful" to another group of players or even just another aspect of the game we never considered. For example:

1. This would harm people that enjoy playing with this tactic. I haven't tried it myself, but it certainly could be useful and rewarding to stall for a bit, then pounce at the oppurtune moment. It would suck if this option was removed. The game is about creative tactics, and banning creativity is silly.

2. Life for any Shuttle player will be hard, especially anyone making use of comboing Captain Yorr. Heck, I've played 2 or 3 shuttle lists where the middle of the board gets so clogged that no ships moved for several turns. Would this be a Fortress? I had one game recently where Fat Han was trapped by 3 Shuttles for 5 turns in a row while Whisper took out the support. Is this a Fortress? What if you move out of the starting area into the middle of the board before purposely ramming your ships together? Is it required that you purposely must make choices to purposely move at all times? Again, play Shuttle list and tell me this is possible or even a good tactic Or heck, play a swarm and tell me that you dont occasionally 1 turn a Tie Fighter into the rest of your formation in order to block K Turns.

3.*Insert any number of things I couldn't think of* New rules create new gray areas and new issues.

Ranting aside, the game was designed around the ability to do X, and changing it will appease Y but hurt Z.

The way I see it, the game has been around long enough that making changes at this point will alienate players and cause lots of disputes that the proponents of the change couldn't imagine until it was playtested for 6 months by all players. Making any change could just as well put us in the same situation that the original rules did, just with a different rule.

As the OP has suggested, don't change the game, change the way you play the game.

Edit: Cell phone typos

To add to this...

The game was designed around certain rules.

Ships are costed around certain rules.

Changing these rules might change the balance of the game play in an unexpected way.

...what? When you verb-exploit a loophole in the rules, you're using a noun-exploit. They're not all that different.

In any case, my point was that I lost badly because my opponent continued using strategies that were effective, and I used "exploit" to underscore the fact that the difference between a legal, effective strategy and an "exploit" is whether the person doing the describing likes the strategy.

You can exploit a weakness without it being an exploit. They are very different things.

You're one of those guys who thought Johnny was the real hero in Karate Kid, weren't you?

Don't be ridiculous; Mr. Miyagi is the hero of Karate Kid.