A big part of tournament play is handling the pressure. If that pressure makes my opponent do a hard left instead of a hard right, yet I manage not to make that mistake, how is that any less of an achievement for me? I kept my head and played well. They didn't. That's competition.

X-Wing is a contest of mental ability, so mental mistakes should factor in to who wins or loses, just like if Bolt didn't train his starting block technique enough and trips over his own feet when the pistol fires. You didn't trip over your own feet, does that somehow invalidate your victory when you get the medal?

This is the disconnect, in my opinion. X-Wing is not a game of general mental ability. it's a game of list building and tactics. It is by that score that someone like me wants to play.

...and in the same way, if you beat Usain Bolt because he tripped and fell, then sure, you won the event. Just as in this thread, no one would deny that. What they would deny is the notion that you're a faster runner than he. You're not, you know you're not, and you know your win comes with an asterisk. I don't want a diminished win like that. I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not capitalizing on unrepresentative mistakes.

It smacks of the antiquated notion that scoring an 'A' on an achievement test displays aptitude. It doesn't. It just shows that you scored an 'A' on a test.

X-Wing is a contest of mental ability, so mental mistakes should factor in to who wins or loses, just like if Bolt didn't train his starting block technique enough and trips over his own feet when the pistol fires. You didn't trip over your own feet, does that somehow invalidate your victory when you get the medal?

This is the disconnect, in my opinion. X-Wing is not a game of general mental ability. it's a game of list building and tactics. It is by that score that someone like me wants to play.

...and in the same way, if you beat Usain Bolt because he tripped and fell, then sure, you won the event. Just as in this thread, no one would deny that. What they would deny is the notion that you're a faster runner than he. You're not, you know you're not, and you know your win comes with an asterisk. I don't want a diminished win like that. I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not capitalizing on unrepresentative mistakes.

It smacks of the antiquated notion that scoring an 'A' on an achievement test displays aptitude. It doesn't. It just shows that you scored an 'A' on a test.

By your logic, helping your opponent and them winning would need include an asterisk next to their win, you and them knowing that they only won due to your help. Would you want to push an inadequate player up the ladder in a tournament, potentially sacrificing your own spot, when you both know that by his own means, he shouldn't be there in the first place? How is a win by your own skill against theirs diminished but a win due to the help of your opponent not a diminished win?

Regarding the part in bold, what if it were flipped the other way. "I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not by my opponent helping me along the way."

I am little confused by this statement from the OP. I am somewhat of a new player

" Before I could fire, he uses Roark's ability to give the Fringer PS12 and then tries to fire the HLC out of his main arc. I had to explain to him that couldn't do that as he hadn't taken the Outrider title."

I looked at the Outrider title - it states you cannot make a primary weapon attacks, but use secondary weapon attacks outside your firing ARC. He has HLC equipped but not Outrider, so I would think that the HLC only fires out of the main arc being a secondary weapon?

The primary weapon is turret based right? so he can fire that all around, unless he takes the Outrider, secondary would only fire from the main arc?

I think what this means is that the player was trying to shoot his Heavy Laser Cannon outside of the firing arc. However, as he did not have the title, he could not do that. The HLC would have to fire in the firing arc only, but that outside of that firing arc he could still use the primary weapon.

X-Wing is a contest of mental ability, so mental mistakes should factor in to who wins or loses, just like if Bolt didn't train his starting block technique enough and trips over his own feet when the pistol fires. You didn't trip over your own feet, does that somehow invalidate your victory when you get the medal?

This is the disconnect, in my opinion. X-Wing is not a game of general mental ability. it's a game of list building and tactics. It is by that score that someone like me wants to play.

I'm a pretty forgetful player, though I don't count on people reminding me of stuff. I absolutely believe that Tvboy is right that this is a game of mental stamina, though I don't necessarily follow him to the same conclusion. Thinking through the possibilities of maneuvers; keeping in mind your own and your opponent's abilities, thinking several turns ahead, etc., that is all a matter of mental stamina.

However, I agree with you that tactics and list-building are what should be the highlight of it. Also, I think if I have a game I want both myself and my opponent to have fun - and a tournament game is no different. I think we both have more fun of we take our respective levels of dementia out of it as much as is reasonable.

...and in the same way, if you beat Usain Bolt because he tripped and fell, then sure, you won the event. Just as in this thread, no one would deny that. What they would deny is the notion that you're a faster runner than he. You're not, you know you're not, and you know your win comes with an asterisk.

You might not be the faster runner, but you'd be the better runner. Because not falling over when you run is just as much a part of the race as being fast is. The guy with the fastest car doesn't win every NASCAR race.

I always remind people I play against, if they overlooked something. But I have the privilege not to have to play against (insert choice expletive here).

And again, this is in a tournament. If we're just playing casually, I've got no problem asking if a guy wants to use an action or ability, or reminding them about something. Casual play is where you learn not to make the mistakes that'll kill you in competitive play.

What they would deny is the notion that you're a faster runner than he.

Races are not just a contest of pure speed, they're won by who ran the best race that time. Speed in of itself is not the only factor that wins a race. How you come off the blocks, your stamina, your ability to hurdle, ect... all can be a factor depending on what kind of race you running.

and you know your win comes with an asterisk.

No actually it won't, because unless someone else trips him, you won fairly. So there's no asterisk, just like there isn't one for this years Superbowl. Sure the Seahawks could of won, maybe should of won. But their mistake cost them the game, and so the Patriots won fair and square. No one is trying to diminish the Pat's win, even if they agree that the Hawks handed them the game.

I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not capitalizing on unrepresentative mistakes.

Not making mistakes is part of how anyone should judge how well you fly your list.

By your logic, helping your opponent and them winning would need include an asterisk next to their win, you and them knowing that they only won due to your help. Would you want to push an inadequate player up the ladder in a tournament, potentially sacrificing your own spot, when you both know that by his own means, he shouldn't be there in the first place? How is a win by your own skill against theirs diminished but a win due to the help of your opponent not a diminished win?

Regarding the part in bold, what if it were flipped the other way. "I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not by my opponent helping me along the way."

Heh, that's not by my logic. That's by your logic. They're not inadequate in my book. Again, that's the disconnect. You see forgetting to do something as an inadequacy. You keep insisting that helping them in this regard is helping to play their game for them. I don't. I see their mistake as unrepresentative of their ability to play the game the way it was intended to be played. You are necessarily not flying better than the other guy if you're not being a good sport about, for example, reminding him that he has an action to take with a ship. If you think you are then I suppose we're at an impasse.

The whole concept of "potentially sacrificing your own spot" is just bad sportmanship, in my opinion. As I've argued before, if all you're interested in is the win then that is the literal antithesis of sportsmanship. If someone shows up late to a game and loses by forfeit, you don't say he's a bad player. You don't claim to be the better player. You take a win within the rules of play but you didn't win a game of X-Wing. You won a game on a technicality. That's completely meaningless withing the spirit of the game and it is equally as meaningless to capitalize on honest and correctable mistakes. Take your win, of course, but don't expect me to consider you the better player. You're not entitled to that.

It should be pointed out that you're also a poor sport if you blame an opponent for only winning because he didn't point out your mistakes. Don't forgive yourself. Be forgiving of your opponent. Respect your opponent by doing your best. This is the way of the sportsman.

I see their mistake as unrepresentative of their ability to play the game the way it was intended to be played.

That's a fairly large logical disconnect. Because what you're saying is that someone who fails to use all the abilities and options their list has, it's not actually a matter of skill on their part. That forgetting something isn't a failure of ability.

In a game like X-Wing that just doesn't fit, because the whole game is about making effective use of your options. You fail to do that, and that is very much a matter of how well you flew your list.

I mean, if you were in a chess match and someone moved their King but hadn't yet castled, would you feel you needed to point that out to them? Because I know in my experience, no serious chess player would point it out to other person... Unless they were playing a teaching game.

Take your win, of course, but don't expect me to consider you the better player.

No one would make that claim ever. So what exactly is your point?

Respect your opponent by doing your best. This is the way of the sportsman.

You should also respect your opponent enough to not treat them like the only way they can win is by offering your help. If I made a mistake in a game, and someone offered to let me take it back, I'd not agree, because if I did, it would taint the win, because I no longer won based on my skill, I won based on my skill + someone elses help.

By your logic, helping your opponent and them winning would need include an asterisk next to their win, you and them knowing that they only won due to your help. Would you want to push an inadequate player up the ladder in a tournament, potentially sacrificing your own spot, when you both know that by his own means, he shouldn't be there in the first place? How is a win by your own skill against theirs diminished but a win due to the help of your opponent not a diminished win?

Regarding the part in bold, what if it were flipped the other way. "I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not by my opponent helping me along the way."

1. Heh, that's not by my logic. That's by your logic. They're not inadequate in my book. Again, that's the disconnect. 2. You see forgetting to do something as an inadequacy. 3. You keep insisting that helping them in this regard is helping to play their game for them. I don't. I see their mistake as unrepresentative of their ability to play the game the way it was intended to be played. 4. You are necessarily not flying better than the other guy if you're not being a good sport about, for example, reminding him that he has an action to take with a ship. If you think you are then I suppose we're at an impasse.

5. The whole concept of "potentially sacrificing your own spot" is just bad sportmanship, in my opinion. As I've argued before, if all you're interested in is the win then that is the literal antithesis of sportsmanship. 6. If someone shows up late to a game and loses by forfeit, you don't say he's a bad player. You don't claim to be the better player. You take a win within the rules of play but you didn't win a game of X-Wing. You won a game on a technicality. 7. That's completely meaningless withing the spirit of the game and the spirit of competition and it is equally as meaningless to capitalize on honest and correctable mistakes. Take your win, of course, but don't expect me to consider you the better player. You're not entitled to that.

It should be pointed out that you're also a poor sport if you blame an opponent for only winning because he didn't point out your mistakes. Don't forgive yourself. Be forgiving of your opponent. Respect your opponent by doing your best. This is the way of the sportsman.

1. No, it's by your logic, you just don't want to agree that you're fallible. So a player that forgets their cards isn't inadequate to move ahead of you in a tournament. What about a player who continually chooses the wrong maneuvers, goes after the wrong ship, doesn't focus fire? Are they also adequate to move up in a tournament due to you letting them go back and change their maneuvers, you telling them what ship would be best to attack, you telling them how focus firing is a proven strategy?

2. It is if it costs them the game/tournament, absolutely. Not my fault and not my obligation to correct it. In a tournament I'd be too worried about remembering my own cards than helping someone with theirs.

3. Helping them is against the very point of going to a higher level competitive tournament.

4. Reminding your opponent of their optional effects does not make you a good sport, this has already been discussed earlier in this thread. Some people seem to be confusing being helpful (possibly to the point of your own loss) with being a good sport.

5. Honestly I'm tired of seeing this word used. Sportsmanship is for sports and this is not a sport. If I am not interested in the win or I am more interested in fun than winning, I really shouldn't be competing in a tournament in the first place. It's pretty simple really. Playing at home or in casual tournaments is for fun, playing in competitive and premiere tournaments, don't kid yourself, you are there to win.

6. Your example is not really what we are talking about here. I'd feel bad for the guy who signs up to a competitive tournament and can't make it on time but it has nothing in common with the concept of reminding players about their own cards.

7. Pretty sure the spirit of the game is just to play and have fun.

if all you're interested in is the win then that is the literal antithesis of sportsmanship.

I'm not sure where you got that definition from, but while that may be your personal opinion, it is is most definitely not the literal antithesis of sportsmanship.

Here's the definition from merriam-webster, you'll note a complete lack of anything about the desire to win.

fair play, respect for opponents, and polite behavior by someone who is competing in a sport or other competition

The Win At All Costs mentality is contrary to sportsmanship, but there's a difference between WAAC and the desire to win, even if that is most important thing.

**** I guess I was a bad sport last weekend when I won a store championship. Good sportsmanship is not being a jerk plain and simple. In a competitive setting the goal is to win, not meet new people, not teach others the game. Yeah they can be very fun social events bit if you're the kind of person who hates losing and blames it on the dice or the other player being a **** since because they wouldn't remind you about your list then maybe it isn't for you. Honestly it's not for everyone and you need to be a the kind of person who is able to accept losses and learn from them and know that you're going to win or lose on your own and not with any help.

That is the disconnect in this thread. Some think that competing is about winning and others think that it is about the competition itself.

Then we can break down what people think makes a win/competition worthwhile, and then we end up with a mildly interesting, seven-page thread where no one seems to understand each other.

Interestingly, this controversy has just sprung up again in the MTG community as well, due to pro player mentioning in an article that he was reminding his opponent of his negative triggers but not his positive ones (which is completely and explicitly allowed in their tournament rules).

X-Wing is a contest of mental ability, so mental mistakes should factor in to who wins or loses, just like if Bolt didn't train his starting block technique enough and trips over his own feet when the pistol fires. You didn't trip over your own feet, does that somehow invalidate your victory when you get the medal?

This is the disconnect, in my opinion. X-Wing is not a game of general mental ability. it's a game of list building and tactics. It is by that score that someone like me wants to play.

...and in the same way, if you beat Usain Bolt because he tripped and fell, then sure, you won the event. Just as in this thread, no one would deny that. What they would deny is the notion that you're a faster runner than he. You're not, you know you're not, and you know your win comes with an asterisk. I don't want a diminished win like that. I want to win in the spirit of the game and that means winning by building and flying my list better than the next guy, not capitalizing on unrepresentative mistakes.

So the problem is that you've constructed you're own personal criteria for what makes a player better than other players that is not recognized by the rules or the tournament structure. You mention the spirit of the game, but there is no official criteria on what that means, so there is no way to confirm your definition of what that is is the same as everyone else's, it's purely your opinion that might be similar with someone else's opinion, but is clearly at odds with many players here and is not supported in any official capacity. But why should we use your personal criteria for what makes a strong player, when FFG has given us their official and clear criteria of what makes a strong player, which is contained in their rule book/FAQ and tournament rules?

You can claim that the better player is the one who is better at maneuvering and list building, but if that were actually true, then shouldn't that player win regardless of whether or not I remind them of their upgrades? You claim that remembering whether or not to use your upgrades and actions is not a skill that should be looked at when evaluating a player's strength. Again, I would simply argue that if that is the case, then it shouldn't matter whether I do or don't remind that person to use their upgrades and actions, because the only thing that should matter is their list building and maneuvering correct?

If I beat someone in a tournament because they forgot to use their actions or upgrades, and I didn't, there is no asterisk to my win because I put in the time in my practice games with that list and created reminders for myself not to forget to use my abilities, and clearly my opponent did not bother and is just trying to lazily brain fart their way through this tournament with a list that they don't know how to use. If they want to maintain the benefit of their upgrades, then they can put in the practice time like I did, otherwise tough luck.

History is riddled with big guys losing to the little guy and complaining that the little guy only won by violating some imaginary rule of conduct. Imaginary, arbitrary mental constructs of what defines a stronger player might look like a way to make your wins more honorable, but they're really just excuses to shield your pride when you lose to someone you think is inferior to you. If the definition of the stronger player isn't winning, then what is the point of competition?

x

5. Honestly I'm tired of seeing this word used. Sportsmanship is for sports and this is not a sport.

What if I happen to be playing in a sports-bar? Wearing Gillete-Sport deoderant? Not all words that contain "sport" are restricted to sports. Being a good sport doesn't mean you must be playing a sport to do so. ... wow Sport is one of those words , that after you say it enough times it sounds really strange. Like an Alien word. Sport. sport sport sport. sport. wow. do me a favor and say it like 20 times and you'll see what I mean.

If I am not interested in the win or I am more interested in fun than winning, I really shouldn't be competing in a tournament in the first place. It's pretty simple really. Playing at home or in casual tournaments is for fun, playing in competitive and premiere tournaments, don't kid yourself, you are there to win.

Not even close. I play in every tournament I can find for all the games I love.... and I do it simply to have the opportunity to play. Winning is great, and sometimes I would certainly like to win, but the VAST majority of tournaments I play in are for the opportunity to simply sit down and play multiple games against good people.

This may not be the case for most, but it is my case. I don't get to play the games I love as often as I'd like, so to me - tournament means I get to play at LEAST 3 games - which makes me absolutely overjoyed! Winning is totally a secondary concern at that point.

At this point, I have to say that despot this being largely about opinion, you are not coming to a good conclusion. Anyone who suggests that the winner is automatically the stronger of the competitors is denying reality. We could play X-Wing and, after turn two, I could hit you in the face with a chair. Assuming that the ambulance arrived before the police cruiser, I would win. Now, the issues that impact the competition that we are discussing here are obviously different than my example, but the same logic applies for people who don't consider single lapses of memory to have a place in determining who the stronger player is, which is why people generally compete.

Some think that competing is about winning and others think that it is about the competition itself.

If competing isn't about winning, it's not really a competition, it's just an activity. Even friendly casual games is still about who wins, because that's when the game ends, when someone wins. The whole point of a competition is to see who's better at whatever it is.

The better player will be the one who won by whatever criteria the event has put into place. The fact that some perhaps didn't play up to his or her best ability doesn't change that outcome, for that single game, they were not the better player, even if they are most other times.

You mention the spirit of the game, but there is no official criteria on what that means, so there is no way to confirm your definition of what that is is the same as everyone else's

Agreed, anytime someone mentions "winning in the spirit of the game" it's seldom anything other than someone trying to enforce rules that don't actually exist in any sort of official context. They're often also rules that most people wouldn't agree to in the first place.

I like to remind people. Why? Because that's how I like to play.

Some people don't, same reason.

Not reminding people is not a sign of poor sportsmanship, nor is reminding people a way to cover up an inferiority complex. Really guys, play whatever way you enjoy and be patient when someone else enjoys something different.

Fortunately, 99% of real life players get this which is why the X-Wing community has been so amazingly positive over the last couple years. Though I admit, if your only exposure to the community was this forum you would be bound to wonder....

nor is reminding people a way to cover up an inferiority complex.

I don't think anyone was saying that. It's when people expect you to remind someone, and call it poor sportsmanship if you don't that there's an issue.

Some think that competing is about winning and others think that it is about the competition itself.

If competing isn't about winning, it's not really a competition, it's just an activity. Even friendly casual games is still about who wins, because that's when the game ends, when someone wins. The whole point of a competition is to see who's better at whatever it is.

That is an exceptionally narrow-minded approach that I don't think that you actually believe is true. People compete for a large variety of reasons. Or are you suggesting that Kenya's participants in cross-country skiing actually expect to take home a gold medal? Or that the 50,000 runners who participate int he New York marathon are all doing so in the hope of crossing the finish line before all of the others? Are those people not competing?

Plenty of people compete solely for the sake of competition. They enjoy testing themselves against others and winning, despite the fact that most try to do so, is nothing more than a piece of metal on a ribbon or a plaque that will take up space somewhere.

At this point, I have to say that despot this being largely about opinion, you are not coming to a good conclusion. Anyone who suggests that the winner is automatically the stronger of the competitors is denying reality. We could play X-Wing and, after turn two, I could hit you in the face with a chair. Assuming that the ambulance arrived before the police cruiser, I would win. Now, the issues that impact the competition that we are discussing here are obviously different than my example, but the same logic applies for people who don't consider single lapses of memory to have a place in determining who the stronger player is, which is why people generally compete.

Except that you've just committed assault, and so you would be arrested and immediately removed from the event and therefore forfeit your current match, and most likely be banned from competitive play and therefore lose all future matches by default. So hitting an opponent in the face with a chair is not a very good tactic for winning a tournament.

that you are officially better at taking foul shots than Michael Jordan.

I give up. You clearly can't or won't understand the point I'm trying to make and I'm not going to bother spending more time and energy trying to explain it.

Here's the bottom line for me.

If you want to remind someone of an action or point out an option, or even let them fix a mistake... Feel free.

But what you can not do, is expect everyone else to play the same way. You also should not expect your advice to be appreciated, because to some people that is not being helpful, that's being condescending.

But most of all, you can never call someone who isn't going to play that way a poor sport. In fact anyone who does, is guilty of that very thing.

Some think that competing is about winning and others think that it is about the competition itself.

If competing isn't about winning, it's not really a competition, it's just an activity. Even friendly casual games is still about who wins, because that's when the game ends, when someone wins. The whole point of a competition is to see who's better at whatever it is.

That is an exceptionally narrow-minded approach that I don't think that you actually believe is true. People compete for a large variety of reasons. Or are you suggesting that Kenya's participants in cross-country skiing actually expect to take home a gold medal? Or that the 50,000 runners who participate int he New York marathon are all doing so in the hope of crossing the finish line before all of the others? Are those people not competing?

Plenty of people compete solely for the sake of competition. They enjoy testing themselves against others and winning, despite the fact that most try to do so, is nothing more than a piece of metal on a ribbon or a plaque that will take up space somewhere.

The better player will be the one who won by whatever criteria the event has put into place. The fact that some perhaps didn't play up to his or her best ability doesn't change that outcome, for that single game, they were not the better player, even if they are most other times.

Honestly, that is getting old. It is not even a remotely intelligent suggestion and I don't think that you actually believe it.

Two competitors are running down a track. They are keeping pace with each other and approaching the finish line. The runner on the right trips and falls. Is the other runner a better runner because he won the race? How do you know? What if I told you that those two runners had run the same race 5,000 times and the runner who tripped won every single time? Even if you try to say that the victor was only a better runner for that single race, we all know that it is still not true. Runners fall. Winning does not determine who is better. It determines who won.

How about another one? Michael Jordan knocks on your front door and invites you to participate in a single-elimination penalty shot competition. You accept. You take the first shot and the ball hits the right side of the rim before lazily ringing into the net. Jordan sets up, shoots, and the ball is off by that single millimeter that can be the difference between a basket and a miss. You just won a foul shot competition against Michael Jordan. Your reasoning above means that, after that single miss by possibly the greatest basketball player of all time, that you are officially better at taking foul shots than Michael Jordan. But, you might argue that it doesn't go that far. You might say, "I was only better than Jordan at taking foul shots for that one competition!" You would still be insane. I don't actually know you, but it is safe for me to assume that, even if you did win as described, you are not and will never be better than Michael Jordan at anything that involves shooting a basketball.

I would also be willing to wager that most serious competitors, those who invest real time and energy into perfecting their skills, would not be satisfied with a competition where the outcome mirrored my runner example. People who really compete like to win, but they like to win well. What makes one win better than another is actually a place for reasonable disagreement, but whether or not winning necessarily determines who the better participant is is not.

If you play in the olympics but don't have any aspirations to actually win a medal, then no you are not competing, you're just showing up. If you run a race and trip over yourself and lose, you don't get to tell everybody you're a better runner than the other racers, because you lost, and the proof is in the results.

I think the difference between us is that I don't believe I ever have the right to tell anyone, even myself, that I am a better player than anyone else, but that I do have the right to prove that I am better than my opponent in any given game by defeating them within the rules.

You believe that regardless of the results, you get to personally determine who is the better player, and results only matter when certain unwritten (imaginary) rules are followed.