Even if the dice screw you, there is no luck involved in maneuvering.

If you are skilled at maneuvering, and at predicting your opponent (definitely a skill. See Poker for an example), then you should consistently place yourself into positions where your green dice won't be used at all, making their incompetence irrelevant.

Folks started to realize this with the Phantom, but I've been preaching it since Wave III, on the "Hypermobile B-Wings".

Think of Greens as being a safety net in case you fail to place your ship properly, and you'll get much better at the game, in my opinion.

I realized that when i bought the core set. Fire arcs are awesome, which is why there are so many forum threads about fat falcons, and why my friends hate my 4-plY list.

Little cubes ruling my life? Little cubes ruling my life?!

Little octahedra ruling my life, thank you very much.

There's no such thing as luck, there's only confirmation bias and a lack of understanding of statistics. The idea that because a random event has an affect on me, I must therefore have an effect on the random event (by being "lucky") is just one of the many ways in which people confuse causality.

I used to see the effect of this with other dice-based games, where people would think they were "unlucky" so they'd build their tactics around a one-off dice roll (often at long odds). Of course, they'd often fail and thereby reinforce their idea of how "unlucky" they are. Similarly, I've had people tell me that interceptors are useless because they so often get one-shotted at range three; then in the next breath tell me they aren't going to bother shooting at my cloaked phantom because they'll "never get through the 4 agility dice". If you want to reduce the influence of "unlucky" statistical outliers, the best bet is to roll as many dice as possible. Shoot at that phantom every chance you get- 3 or 4 blanks is not that unlikely, so give it plenty of chances to happen.

X-wing is even better than most dice-based games for statistical outlier reduction, because there are so many dice modification options available. I've never lost a game because of "bad dice". The dice did what they were supposed to do. Every time I've lost, it's been because I didn't play well enough.

Yes, I think people often downplay their losses, saying bad dice rolls did them in. I also think that other people downplay how much of an effect the dice have on the game. There were a number of games in Worlds that were decided by a dice roll.

A mark of a good player is one that attempts to mitigate randomness, and plans what to do when the dice roll bad, but even then the dice can screw them in the end.

Yes, I think people often downplay their losses, saying bad dice rolls did them in. I also think that other people downplay how much of an effect the dice have on the game. There were a number of games in Worlds that were decided by a dice roll.

A mark of a good player is one that attempts to mitigate randomness, and plans what to do when the dice roll bad, but even then the dice can screw them in the end.

I think that Good players should be able to handle a couple of very fluke rolls in a game, and still be able to recover. At some point though it becomes impossible to come back from unless the dice let you back into the game. It becomes even harder to get back into it in a timed match.

I just like the idea of turning Rounders quotes into X-Wing quotes.

"You know what always cheers me up?"

"No, what's that?"

"Dogfighting X-wings versus Ties. Out-thinking expert players and dropping their ships one by one. Playing Friday late-night furballs at Madness, watching dice turn to crits. Lists and tactics of squadrons I've never seen before."

"**** it, let's go."

"Don't tease me."

"Let's play some X-wing."

"Yes!"

I've been with this game almost just after it's inception and I feel like I get screwed over by the dice. I'm hardly a new player. Some of my friends say I have the worst dice luck within my circle of friends and it kind of feels that way some days, honestly.

What I've learned from this is that more successful lists probably don't rely on agility dice. Hyper-positional phantoms, interceptors, and flying tanks that can shrug the damage are having advantages over most of the conventional lists. Even TIE swarms don't seem to be as fear-inducing as fat Hans anymore, because Han has more resiliency than TIEs do and it doesn't rely entirely on agility dice to survive.

So, yes, you can blame the dice and point to them as being responsible for your list failures. The lesson? Create lists that don't rely heavily on agility dice to win.

Paul probably placed top because he's an excellent player flying an already strong list. Could he do it again without a fat han build?

I just like the idea of turning Rounders quotes into X-Wing quotes.

"You know what always cheers me up?"

"No, what's that?"

"Dogfighting X-wings versus Ties. Out-thinking expert players and dropping their ships one by one. Playing Friday late-night furballs at Madness, watching dice turn to crits. Lists and tactics of squadrons I've never seen before."

"**** it, let's go."

"Don't tease me."

"Let's play some X-wing."

"Yes!"

Rolled up Phantoms versus Y's.

This is a GREAT post. lmao.

Paul probably placed top because he's an excellent player flying an already strong list. Could he do it again without a fat han build?

Really? You think he hasn't quite proven himself yet? He did it last year without a fan han build.

Does he have to win with an 80 point Y and A wing build? The guy won worlds TWICE. The whole point of the article is that it's not luck. There were a BOATLOAD of fat falcon builds at worlds, but the top 8 wasn't 8 falcon lists. Not even close. So where did all those other falcons go? They lost to swarms, and phantoms, and rebels etc.

I'm baffled by this comment. Just baffled. Paul "probably placed top because".... There's no probably about it, friend. The man won worlds. Again.

I think it's important for people to realize that consistently blaming dice for their losses will really interfere with their longterm ability to improve.

I'd go a step further and say you shouldn't blame your list either.

A well flown sub-optimal list will beat an optimal list that isn't so well flown 7 times out of ten - I just made that stay up but you get my point - if you can't fly your list you're dead!

I didn't mean to imply that Paul didn't deserve his win. I just thought it would have been more impressive if he wasn't already using a build-type perceived by parts of the community as overpowered.

Just seems like he ran the most efficient type of Fat Han build and flew it the most efficient way?

It would have been more incredible if he had topped many fat han builds with something other than a phantom list or a falcon list. Something we don't hear of often. Instead of using something the community already knows is a powerful list.

I do reserve the right to curse luck when I hit a Phantom with two hits and two crits at range 1 and they rolled four evades.

A 1.98% chance. Just back-breaking.

I just thought it would have been more impressive if he wasn't already using a build-type perceived by parts of the community as overpowered.

Like how he won last year with a XXBB list that no one had really heard of before?

I kind of agree that he optimized an already powerful list and maxed out the efficiency on it. Nothing wrong with that, of course, and the guy is obviously a really good player, but people were cooing about the "creativity" of it and the "risk" of it, but neither of those were really true; it was just the ultimate expression in terms of that list.

It would be cool to see someone like Paul play with a list that is not just a maxed out version of a popular list, truly bringing some creativity to the game and showing that his skills as a player really are worthy of all the praise and adoration. Not trying to take anything away from the accomplishment; it's great and all that. An environment like this "world championship" tends to bring out the "top" lists and trying something completely new isn't usually high on the list to do at that level, I understand that. Still, it would be nice to see some of the "top tier" players innovate instead of imitate lists.

As an aside, I've seen many games and many "champions" over the years...this is not my first rodeo. I used to play semi-regularly against someone who was a multiple "world champion" at a CCG and sometimes I'd beat him, sometimes not. I always appreciated when he would try out new things or new deck ideas.

I also think it is a bit of a foul to run down someone just because they have a dissenting opinion...everyone has the ability to voice their own opinion and it is polite to be respectful of other opinions, even if they don't match your own.

I just thought it would have been more impressive if he wasn't already using a build-type perceived by parts of the community as overpowered.

Like how he won last year with a XXBB list that no one had really heard of before?

It may have been an interesting combination, but let's not oversell this. B-wings were absolutely rampant at the time, and Biggs... well, let's face it - Biggs is Biggs. There wasn't anything all that revolutionary.

X-wing doesn't have a large enough pool for many truly shocking revolutions. It's typically far more minor evolutions, like including R2-D2 to make the Falcon even tougher.

The actual revolutions tend to be broader in concept - I think we've actually seen one of those with Fat builds, which answers a lot of the "Why wasn't this a problem in Wave 2?" The conceptual shift from offensively-oriented ships to very tough builds with large emphasis on survivability is probably the biggest change the game has seen, and even that has been gradual and communal, much more than a single person's flash of brilliance.

I think the point Norsehound is making (and I could be wrong) is that it would be much more interesting - both from a spectator's view and for the game as a whole - if something truly radical like sozin's Prox Mine list had won.

I had some clutch rolls at Worlds, however I did have a pretty terrible run of dice as well. I had Mithel blown up 4 games in a row at full health rolling blanks, 4 games in a row--three of those times with a Focus languishing on the table for those excrutiating moments after plucking the TIE/ln off the board. It was also common sight to have focuses linger on the table, many of them, unused for offense or defense due to rolls. There is definite skill in the game and I applaud Paul for his successive crown, but it's ever so slightly a bridge too far to claim his victory as one that negates dice as a factor completely.

Paul probably placed top because he's an excellent player flying an already strong list. Could he do it again without a fat han build?

Really? You think he hasn't quite proven himself yet? He did it last year without a fan han build.

Does he have to win with an 80 point Y and A wing build? The guy won worlds TWICE. The whole point of the article is that it's not luck. There were a BOATLOAD of fat falcon builds at worlds, but the top 8 wasn't 8 falcon lists. Not even close. So where did all those other falcons go? They lost to swarms, and phantoms, and rebels etc.

I'm baffled by this comment. Just baffled. Paul "probably placed top because".... There's no probably about it, friend. The man won worlds. Again.

Paul has also won a vassal tournament, the same day as last year's worlds. He's been in the in the top 16 at nationals for the last 2 years in a row.

Dom Cairo has won the last 2 big Vassal tournaments and has placed well in worlds and nationals. There's lots of players who continue to do well at big events. The evidence is there, Paul is just the exclamation point.

I just thought it would have been more impressive if he wasn't already using a build-type perceived by parts of the community as overpowered.

Like how he won last year with a XXBB list that no one had really heard of before?

It may have been an interesting combination, but let's not oversell this. B-wings were absolutely rampant at the time, and Biggs... well, let's face it - Biggs is Biggs. There wasn't anything all that revolutionary.

X-wing doesn't have a large enough pool for many truly shocking revolutions. It's typically far more minor evolutions, like including R2-D2 to make the Falcon even tougher.

The actual revolutions tend to be broader in concept - I think we've actually seen one of those with Fat builds, which answers a lot of the "Why wasn't this a problem in Wave 2?" The conceptual shift from offensively-oriented ships to very tough builds with large emphasis on survivability is probably the biggest change the game has seen, and even that has been gradual and communal, much more than a single person's flash of brilliance.

I think the point Norsehound is making (and I could be wrong) is that it would be much more interesting - both from a spectator's view and for the game as a whole - if something truly radical like sozin's Prox Mine list had won.

I just thought it would have been more impressive if he wasn't already using a build-type perceived by parts of the community as overpowered.

Like how he won last year with a XXBB list that no one had really heard of before?

It may have been an interesting combination, but let's not oversell this. B-wings were absolutely rampant at the time, and Biggs... well, let's face it - Biggs is Biggs. There wasn't anything all that revolutionary.

X-wing doesn't have a large enough pool for many truly shocking revolutions. It's typically far more minor evolutions, like including R2-D2 to make the Falcon even tougher.

The actual revolutions tend to be broader in concept - I think we've actually seen one of those with Fat builds, which answers a lot of the "Why wasn't this a problem in Wave 2?" The conceptual shift from offensively-oriented ships to very tough builds with large emphasis on survivability is probably the biggest change the game has seen, and even that has been gradual and communal, much more than a single person's flash of brilliance.

I think the point Norsehound is making (and I could be wrong) is that it would be much more interesting - both from a spectator's view and for the game as a whole - if something truly radical like sozin's Prox Mine list had won.

Sablegryphon ran the prox mine list. I think sozin ran a rebel small ship list.

I'll be sure to tell him that his winning worlds for a second straight time is good and all, but he DID do it with a "powerful list" which the "community already perceived as powerful".

? what... th... I don't even.....

I give up. I really do.

I accept your surrender! Now hand over the ships.

Need to repeat your triple advanced comment from facebook, Sunny.

I'm trying to say a nicer thing than, "well this just means he's ace of the cheese builds". he built a custom version of a fat falcon but it's still a fat falcon isn't it? So is he really that skilled when he's flying a list that some are calling broken anyway? If people want to claim he's some kind of community legend he'd be taking a build without falcons and Phantoms and defeating all of them.

But that takes merit away from Paul, and I didn't want to be that harsh, but that's essentially what I was thinking with that afterthought comment.

Besides, getting that high on the list must have required one of those "cheese" builds anyway right? I don't blame Paul for taking a powerful list when it's obvious the powerful lists flown by great pilots would be in the top ranking. I'm just saying it would have been more impressive if he topped without resorting to them. But, that may not have been possible I suppose.

So is he really that skilled when he's flying a list that some are calling broken anyway?

Of course he is. Squad building is just as crucial a skill as any other in this game. If Paul's squad really was "broken", then that's just another way in which Paul outdid the rest of the field, not at all something that detracts from his win.

Would you expect the Tour de France winner to not use the best bike money can buy? ;-)

There are definitely great players who will bring creative lists very far at major tournaments (Sable, DarkTemplar, etc...), but there's nothing wrong if your goal is to win as repeat champion to make sure you have the best equipment (list) one can design.