This is probably my most esoteric post ever, but if you've got time, any thoughts would be appreciated, especially if you're a really excellent player.

Where I'm coming from:

I consider myself to be a pretty good player. I win most of my games in tournaments and I've placed in almost all tournaments. I don't think I'm a very good or great player, because I see articles by really good players that clearly have a better grasp of the game than me, and I've watched games played by really good players where they did something I didn't understand that paid off big time later in the game. I understand the set-up and planning aspects of the game (asteroids, target priority, and other big picture stuff), probably because of years of 40k where those were probably the most important skills needed to win games. I'm usually competent not to put myself in terrible positions on any given turn, but I am not really proficient at any subtle traps or tricks or working my opponent into a bad position over several turns.

My question:

Does the language of dog-fighting between really good players translate when a really good player plays someone who's merely decent? An example of what I mean: It seems that most really excellent players love their ships to have lots of positional abilities. Against other high caliber players, the options presented give the opponent a lot to think about for this turn and for later turns. Against a mid-level player, who either doesn't realize the multi-turn ramifications of certain options, or realizes they're there but can't necessarily extrapolate their significance during a given planning phase, does an implied threat that might push a really good player in one direction get ignored by a lesser player? More succinctly, does a feint that works on a really good player fail to work on a lesser player because they don't see the threat in the first place?

If the answer to this question is yes:

-Do the top tier players have ways of figuring out the level of their opposition to try and figure out what that opposition will react to?

-Do top tier players at low-level events find themselves in bad positions because they play a few games where plays that would work on great competition don't work on people that don't see the implied threat?

That's all I've got on the matter for now. Thanks for your time.

More succinctly, does a feint that works on a really good player fail to work on a lesser player because they don't see the threat in the first place?

Interesting question.

I've heard stories and they may very well be urban myths about some chess masters being beat by someone who's understanding of chess is roughly "the horsie goes in a L shape"... Because the other player doesn't get the threat of a strong bishop or a open rank with a rook on it. They play somewhat randomly which throws the standard openings and other gambits out the window.

But like I say that may be more myth than truth...

In X-Wing I suppose there is a point where I can see you have 2 good moves with your Tie Interceptor , you can take move X and boost left, or you can take move Y and barrel roll right. Someone who can't see those two good moves may take move Z and leave the better player out of position because they planned on them picking either X or Y.

But over all I think such a thing would only happen a couple time in a game, because X-Wing is IMO anyway more about *my plan* then reacting to your moves. So while that kind of thing may catch a really good player off guard, I think they'll adjust pretty quickly and fly their plan rather than trying to figure out where you're going.

After all a bad move is a bad move even if you can't capitalize on it right now at worse case you're left even, and it may open up other options for other ships.

In all bluffing games like Poker, a rookie vs a pro plays very differently than pro vs pro.

Someone who goes all-in because they have 2 pictures might not realize the odds, but can still win if good cards are drawn.

The same holds true to a certain extent to any game with hidden information/bluffing.

For example, this is pretty important in games of Magic (is he holding a counterspell or not?)

I think that definitely is also the case with X-wing.

I'm a beginning player and sometimes I still land on asteroids. But a couple of times that turned out better than having done the 'correct' maneuver as on said asteroid, I was out of arc instead of in the fire lines.

I have trouble playing new players in this game. The better the player, the better I do (typically)

I've heard stories and they may very well be urban myths about some chest masters

Yes. I think for most local and even regional tourneys people already know the short-list of really solid opposition.

I too have heard the Chess stories. But lately, i've been quietly tracking dice numbers on my phone when I play casual games or league nights. There's often a relationship between dice numbers and the eventual winner. The key to getting those dice numbers is positioning.

example from a recent game I lost really badly.

Turn 1: no dice rolled.

Turn 2: me: 3 red, 5 greens. Him: 9 red 3 green.

Turn 3: me: 7 red, 4 green. Him: 11 red, 2 green.

Turn 4: me: 3 red, 1 green. Him: 8 red, 1 green.

totals: me: 13 reds, 10 greens. Him: 29 reds, 6 greens.

our total attack dice on ships was about even, but he nearly threw 3 times more reds than I did. why? his positioning was very, very good. Mine was very poor.

Red dice win games.

Red dice win games.

That's very true. He who throws the most red is most likely to be the victor. (assuming no time limit.) More red dice also help to counter the few bad rolls you'll see in a given game.

Games with large skill gaps are difficult for both players. I learned this the hard way. When an opponent uses a maneuver you discarded as "junk", he may put you out of balance. While it may be suboptimal, you may rush to punish it and discard your plan in the process.

Case in point: wave 2 game, Krassis HLC + Howl + 3 ties against 4 Rebels (Wedge, a Y, 2 Rookies). Turn 3 should have been the engagement, somewhere in the center. Opponent instead chooses to turn towards his side of the board, putting me behind him. Takes very little damage, due to me being partly out of range. Following turn, no K-turn! He instead turns the other way, around an asteroid. Suddenly I have to split Ties to avoid that asteroid and keep chasing, I compromise my position, he only has two Ties in his arc but he takes them out. I end up losing. Thinking that his move cost him the game, cost me the game, which is ironic.

Biophysical ... I would answer your question with an analogy of sorts.

I am a professional poker player. I am very, very good at many different forms of the game. I am very, very good at reading my opponents, on putting those opponents on the proper range of hands, on ready body language, tells, etc. In addition, I excel at understanding the motivations of my opponents, and in picking up their tendencies - how they play the game in specific situations.

I have been doing this for a very, very long time successfully.

As you astutely point out, excellent or world class poker players play at a thought level that is far beyond a beginner. For example, a beginner basically knows only what they hold (and sometimes not even then ) and are focused on how they should bet, raise, fold based on their perceived strength of those holdings. They rarely look up to even contemplate what others are doing, or think about how their own actions may affect others, and plan and act accordingly.

In contrast, I not only know what I hold, but have a very good idea of the range of hands my opponents hold. I know their tendencies in terms of how they will bet in certain situations, and how they will react to my bets. I also will consider what, if anything, they think about what I may hold, and how I would react to what they do. I am aware of all of my surroundings, the mood my opponents are in, any tilt factors in play, etc.

All of the above is a very simplistic picture, and only contains the very beginnings of what it takes to go beyond a beginner, or even a competent poker player to become a very good, excellent, or world class player.

The point is that I see strategy games such as X-Wing in a very similar light. I am a beginner at this game. While I have collected since the game came out, and own a fleet worth more than $2,000, I would be absolutely OWNED by the majority of people that participate in this forum. At least I have enough self awareness to admit this to myself. I have read battle reports, watched tournaments, etc. that demonstrate that there are people who play this game at a far deeper level than I do. I know the gulf is wide; I know that they consider things I haven't even discovered are "things" of which I should be aware.

In both Poker and X-Wing, there is a sufficient level of luck that on any given day, no matter the skill differentials, any player could beat anyone else. Given enough luck, I could beat Paul Heaver. But over the long run, skill will determine the long term winner.

When I explain games like Poker or X-Wing to my friends, I use the following example. I could play a world class tennis player like Rafael Nadal, or golfer like Rory McIlroy thousands of times and never beat them. Skill will always win out, at least given our specific skill differences. And it's not even close.

But, a complete beginner in Poker could beat me in the short term; still, in the long term, really good players in Poker and/or X-Wing will win out.

But, a complete beginner in Poker could beat me in the short term; still, in the long term, really good players in Poker and/or X-Wing will win out.

Yes, which is why you see the same group of people at the top tables more often than not. Sure the dice may go very cold for you and very hot for the other guy.

They may one shot your double focus + evade Soontir or cloaked Whisper at range 3 thanks to a lucky Direct Hit! You can't do much to counter luck like that, but that doesn't mean you're going to lose the game, and even if you do, losing a single game doesn't mean you're out of the tournament.

-Do the top tier players have ways of figuring out the level of their opposition to try and figure out what that opposition will react to?

-Do top tier players at low-level events find themselves in bad positions because they play a few games where plays that would work on great competition don't work on people that don't see the implied threat?

Really interesting question, Biophysical. I believe the answer to both of these question is yes.

With regards to the first question, there are a couple of "tells" that give away somebody who is very experienced at the game. For me, these are obstacle placing and ship deployment. Top-tier players usually, but not always, have specific deployment setups in mind against specific matchups. They may have practiced a particular set of opening moves. I'm going to be instantly much more careful around an opponent who carefully measures and places three asteroids in certain positions before placing his TIE Swarm in a very specific formation, than somebody who just chucks down his obstacles haphazardly and then quickly dumps his four ships in the corner.

Of course, this can also be a feint, with an experienced player deploying badly to fool you into coming at him at poor angles.

As for the second question, I do think this can and does happen. I've seen experienced players who often place highly in tournaments get caught completely off-guard by the moves revealed by a newer player. I've played games where I'm throwing forward A-Wings to block ships, anticipating them to go through asteroids, that get left completely out of position because the opponent didn't even see the move coming and had decided to dive straight through the asteroid (to shoot said A-Wings). It happens a lot, and I think it's the mark of a good player to anticipate not only the "correct" moves by other good players, but "non-correct" moves as well.

But, a complete beginner in Poker could beat me in the short term; still, in the long term, really good players in Poker and/or X-Wing will win out.

Yes, which is why you see the same group of people at the top tables more often than not. Sure the dice may go very cold for you and very hot for the other guy.

They may one shot your double focus + evade Soontir or cloaked Whisper at range 3 thanks to a lucky Direct Hit! You can't do much to counter luck like that, but that doesn't mean you're going to lose the game, and even if you do, losing a single game doesn't mean you're out of the tournament.

Unless this turn of luck happens in the elimination rounds... then you are out of the tournament. :\

Thanks for everybody's thoughts so far. Really interesting stuff. I will chime in and agree with lots of you that in aggregate, skill is definitely a defining feature of consistent winners. I'm mostly looking at the odd game where players don't know each other, such as during a tournament.

Would it be safe to say that if a low level player beats a high level player 1 time in 10, odds are that the one time is going to be the first time the two play?

You can't teach people how to predict another person's moves you either "know" where they're going next turn or you don't, that's what wins me games being able to outfly people by putting myself in their place.

It works the other way to if you know what the other person expects you can do the unexpected and gain a large advantage.

40k is just rolling dice, x-wing requires alot more forethought.

When you place your third obstacle, you should already know the next four moves your ships are going to make in the game.

In X-Wing, like any strategy game, the ability to think more turns ahead than your opponent gives you an advantage.

The issue you're driving at is whether or not beginners have an immunity to feints, and other complex strategies by virtue of their ignorance. The solution, I feel, is to never make feints in the truest sense. A feint is a threat of attack, or a movement designed to draw a response to set up the opponent for a stronger attack someplace else. If you make all of your feints also full-intention attacks, you solve the problem. If the enemy bites on the feint, good, mission accomplished. If they don't, your feint becomes the main line of attack. This is a principle used in fencing all the time.

The issue you're driving at is whether or not beginners have an immunity to feints, and other complex strategies by virtue of their ignorance. The solution, I feel, is to never make feints in the truest sense. A feint is a threat of attack, or a movement designed to draw a response to set up the opponent for a stronger attack someplace else. If you make all of your feints also full-intention attacks, you solve the problem. If the enemy bites on the feint, good, mission accomplished. If they don't, your feint becomes the main line of attack. This is a principle used in fencing all the time.

Agreed.

There isn't much point in using a fancy play in poker or X-Wing (FPS - fancy play syndrome) if your opponent doesn't have the depth of thought to even understand what you are doing ...

It's like anything else ... observe, adjust, and play to the player's weaknesses ...

I know I sometimes spend 5 min second guessing myself as I try to select maneuvers.

Just last night I played a game where I had 3 A-Wings closing in on a stressed Chewbacca. Because of rocks and my Dash, Chewie almost had to pull a green 1 bank right if he wanted to clear stress. And one of my A-Wings could very easily move and boost into position to block this bank, which would leave poor Chewie with a single evade token (Kyle crew + Jan crew), getting shot at by 2 A-Wings and Dash's Mangler Cannon. Awesome move! I'm gonna block him!

But wait, the block is so obvious... What if he pulls a bank 3 left, keeping his stress. He'll be out of arc of all my A-Wings, and only be getting shot at by Dash... and he'll get a range 1 shot on my A-Wing that tried to block... and he'll have a stack of 2 evades and a TL. Bugger.

This was on VASSAL, against someone I had never played before. I don't know how good this guy is, will he try and escape the block?

He did pull a few maneuvers that I hadn't expected, but, on the other hand, he also made some weird decisions and split his fire on my 3 A-Wings (took the shields off all of them, but didn't kill any).

I opted to setup the kill, considering that the payoff if it worked was far greater than the consequences if it failed.

Chewie ended up pulling the 1 bank to clear his stress. He was already shield-less and ended the round with a single hull point.

That round pretty much sealed the deal.

When you place your third obstacle, you should already know the next four moves your ships are going to make in the game.

I 100% disagree with that statement, especially if you're placing first. For example, if I'm playing Rebel Control, and place in my right hand corner. How am I supposed to have the next 4 moves planned out already? My moves are dependent upon where my opponent sets up. If he's directly across from me, I might want to rush in and ionize and stress his ships so I can get behind without a problem. Or if he setup on the opposite corner, I might want to go slow so I can see what he's doing before I commit myself to a path (through, above, or below the rocks).

I've found that thinking about your next turn is about as far forward as you want to think/plan. This ensures you have an escape plan, but doesn't telegraph your movements. You need to be flexible to respond to what your opponent does, as well as what the dice give you. If I'm shooting my TL+F Prockets at a tokenless Fel, I fully expect to kill him. But if I don't, that COMPLETELY changes the game plan for the next turn.

When you place your third obstacle, you should already know the next four moves your ships are going to make in the game.

I 100% disagree with that statement, especially if you're placing first. For example, if I'm playing Rebel Control, and place in my right hand corner. How am I supposed to have the next 4 moves planned out already? My moves are dependent upon where my opponent sets up. If he's directly across from me, I might want to rush in and ionize and stress his ships so I can get behind without a problem. Or if he setup on the opposite corner, I might want to go slow so I can see what he's doing before I commit myself to a path (through, above, or below the rocks).

I've found that thinking about your next turn is about as far forward as you want to think/plan. This ensures you have an escape plan, but doesn't telegraph your movements. You need to be flexible to respond to what your opponent does, as well as what the dice give you. If I'm shooting my TL+F Prockets at a tokenless Fel, I fully expect to kill him. But if I don't, that COMPLETELY changes the game plan for the next turn.

I tend to agree with Khyros.

If I'm deploying my ships first (lowest PS), I'll try and have at least 2 or 3 options available for the first couple turns.

For example:

1. Move up quickly between 2 rocks, then break left or right
2. Bank left at the start to line myself up to fly in between 2 obstacles
3. Pull a hard turn and stay on my side of the board before cutting into the center

What I do will depend immensely on where my opponent sets up.

Especially the timing of my maneuvers, do I for 5 ahead in 1 round? Or do I take 2 rounds to end up in the same spot (2 x 2-straight)?

Do I cut into the center now, or in another turn?

Of course, I'll be thinking about these 2-3 options as I place my obstacles, trying to set up nice flight paths through the rocks for my ships.

But saying you should have 4 turns planned out is pushing it a little.

When you place your third obstacle, you should already know the next four moves your ships are going to make in the game.

In X-Wing, like any strategy game, the ability to think more turns ahead than your opponent gives you an advantage.

Of course, that depends on the squad. Arc dodgey ships require placing your ship in a reactionary way, etc etc. Sometimes you'll want to set up and make stall movements to know the opponent's planned course, sometimes you'll want to react to the setup with some quick aggression.

I think having your opening moves planned out and your general stratergy of Attack is where you should be at this point. As in I'll set up here and x forward if he jousts or y bank if he refused flanks me. From there I know ill want to go deep and come round/ rush in front and block/ catch him in the corner and beat on him like a drunken hippy ect ect. but yeah, I generally don't have a 'set' plan for moves other than the next turn, everything else is at best a vague notion of how I want the game to pan out

I tend to divide my opponents into 3 tiers of skill, which for the purpose of discussion I will call Padawans, Knights, and Masters. A Padawan may know the rules but is inexperienced and their understanding of the game's strategy is mostly limited to "point my ships at his and shoot". Knights are players that are experienced and know the fundamentals (like focus fire, target priority and arc-dodging) but don't understand misdirection and bigger picture strategies. Masters are experienced players that can see the forest and not just the trees, and knows how to trick you and how see through your attempts at misdirecting them at the same time. I think the majority of competitive players are Knights with little glimmers of Master in them, and I will treat every player I play against for the first time as a Knight until I see proof that they are not.

Beating a Knight is all about using that player's preconceived notions about the game against them, to make them play the way you want them to so that you are always one step ahead of them. You use subtle messages and clues through your maneuvers to make them think they have a read on you, and then because you know what you're opponent thinks you're going to do (because you're purposefully leaking information to them) you do something completely different and unexpected at a critical moment to put your opponent into a bad position. You beat Knights through misdirection, using feints and false weak points to get them to trip over themselves and delivering a decisive KO while their feet are crossed.

Padawans are still too busy struggling with their inexperience to read any of these subtle hints you give them without making them so obvious that they will know that you're up to something. They barely understand the purpose of their own maneuvers, (again, "point and shoot" mindset), let alone understanding the meaning of your maneuvers. Against inexperienced players, you are already one step ahead of them just because of your greater experience (hopefully). So it's mostly just about playing tight and conservative and reacting to their moves and punishing them when they make a fatal mistake, which comes with a lack of experience. You beat inexperienced players by grinding them out and making far less mistakes than them, letting your stronger grasp of the game's fundamentals carry you.

I'm not sure yet what is the best way to play against a Master, although I have a theory that playing as I would against a Padawan may be the best option, playing conservatively, ignoring any clues my opponent might be giving me (as they are likely fabricated to trick me), reacting and being ready for the unexpected, and waiting for my opponent to overextend and make a mistake by trying too hard to be clever. This is based on the "levelling" theory from Poker and other games, where if he's on level 3 (scissors) thinking that I'm on level 2 (paper), then I can beat him by going back to level 1 (rock). However intuitively I know that it's probably not that simple.

Edit: I realized I didn't answer OP's second question. No, I've never had a feint or bait cause me to lose the game against a Padawan just because they didn't register the threat. A Padawan might not fall for your trick out of obliviousness, but that means they usually won't be in a position to punish you either. If your opponent blindly fails to react to your misdirection AND is able to punish you for it, then whatever trick you are using isn't a safe one and should probably be abandoned. Only a Master that can see through your trick play and react in the correct way should be able to punish a decent misdirection play. A great misdirection play is one that can be instantly cancelled even when the opponent sees through it and is able to react appropriately.

As soon as I realize that my opponent has failed to react to my feint or bait, but also failed to punish it, I know that I am up against a Padawan and adjust my play accordingly to rely on fundamentals instead of jukes and traps.

And yes, I used to play a lot of fighting games and I have ported over a lot of the strategy from fighting games into my X-Wing play, to some success. Also, I will openly admit that every time I pick up a new list, I play like a Padawan.

[snip]

That was well written and was a fun read!

10/10, would read again!