I don't think it's subjective that turrets ruin the game. The game is (supposed to be) about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent.

Says who? Who declared that the game is about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent?

well, tbf that's the activation phase in a nutshell

factor in the PS order of movement which will not change apart from a lucky crit, and maneuvers + predicting the opponent which then lead into the actions that can produce game-swinging results, and maneuvering + predicting become basically the ways in which the players get to directly interact with the game

after that, you got shooting which involves players selecting targets and then dice taking care of the rest (hopefully being properly modified by actions taken during the activation phase)

so yeah, that's most of the game. X-wing has no expansive resource management ala Warmachine's Focus (and actions are tied to maneuvering) nor its bevy of special abilities and differing ranges, which is fine because the game is very simple to pick up because of it and the maneuvering is very robust.

"Are we done complaining about Fat Turrets yet?"

Yes.

This thread is now about the indestructible autothrusting Stealthy Soontir.

"Oh, you scored four hits? That's AWESOME! OK, well, I roll five dice... and I need to roll four blanks in order to take one damage..."

What is each side advocating for, exactly?

Are the anti-turret people advocating nerfing the PWT ships out of existence competitively?

Are the not-anti-turret people advocating that nothing needs to or should be done to mitigate the high metagame share these turrets have?

Because ya'll attack each other like both those statements are true, but I don't think either of them are.

I think that both sides want the same outcome (a balanced, fun game) but are in a disagreement on how to get there.

The fastest way to lower turret metagame share is to nerf them, hence the reason why turret hating folks want to go that route.

Riot Games (maker of League of Legends) has generated a ton of research on game balance, atmosphere, and community. A lot of that game balance research can also apply to analog gaming like X-Wing. They've found that when a game element is generally dominating the game that the instant reaction to nerf it is a poor knee-jerk response, because usually what happens is that something else generally comes up as dominant. The best way to deepen diversity in a game is to add new elements, leaving the raw power of individual components alone but adding in additional measures of "counterplay".

This is exactly why I wouldn't advocate for nerfs to PWTs, even though I agree they are less fun to fly against. I'd rather see new avenues of attack created through the addition of more game material (making ordinance really good against them, scenario play, etc) that allow me to directly combat them without setting the precedent of panic-nerfs.

"Are we done complaining about Fat Turrets yet?"

Yes.

This thread is now about the indestructible autothrusting Stealthy Soontir.

"Oh, you scored four hits? That's AWESOME! OK, well, I roll five dice... and I need to roll four blanks in order to take one damage..."

They're everywhere!

but yeah, Soonts is great when everyone, their mother, and their dog is bringing 2-ship lists that can't block him or control him. He's the Corran Horn of the imperials, except more defensive and less offensive (no double tap + FCS ) and cheaper

I don't think it's subjective that turrets ruin the game. The game is (supposed to be) about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent.

Says who? Who declared that the game is about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent?

well, tbf that's the activation phase in a nutshell

factor in the PS order of movement which will not change apart from a lucky crit, and maneuvers + predicting the opponent which then lead into the actions that can produce game-swinging results, and maneuvering + predicting become basically the ways in which the players get to directly interact with the game

after that, you got shooting which involves players selecting targets and then dice taking care of the rest (hopefully being properly modified by actions taken during the activation phase)

so yeah, that's most of the game. X-wing has no expansive resource management ala Warmachine's Focus (and actions are tied to maneuvering) nor its bevy of special abilities and differing ranges, which is fine because the game is very simple to pick up because of it and the maneuvering is very robust.

I'll have to agree with ficklegreendice here. Half the game, if not most of it is maneuvering. And yes, maneuvering a ship with a 360 arc does make it more forgiving, but I again disagree with the notion that 360 arcs eliminate this aspect of the game ENTIRELY.

If everyone had just a front facing arc, the meta would be a battle ground of PS9+ Barrel Rolling and Boosting out of arcs. If that's what you're into then that's fine, but it doesn't sound balanced to me.

but yeah, Soonts is great when everyone, their mother, and their dog is bringing 2-ship lists that can't block him or control him. He's the Corran Horn of the imperials, except more defensive and less offensive (no double tap + FCS ) and cheaper

Posted in the battle report thread the other week, I had an undamaged Scum Kath presenting her shapely backside to Soontir Fel (who was on his last hull point at that point) for around 10 turns, and Soontir eventually won. Kath was averaging 3.5 hits a turn, but simply could not get the kill.

Autothrusters & Evade Token & Focus Token & Stealth Device & Range 3 - Soontir needs to roll two evade or focus results on five dice to take zero damage. That's assuming he lets you get a shot off in the first place.

Notice however I'm not calling for a nerf here; Gunner and/or Feedback Array would have made quite the difference, and Soontir should have ben a priority target. You need multiple shots on the guy - strip the tokens, then fire again. Bossk crew will nail him to the wall.

What is each side advocating for, exactly?

Are the anti-turret people advocating nerfing the PWT ships out of existence competitively?

Are the not-anti-turret people advocating that nothing needs to or should be done to mitigate the high metagame share these turrets have?

Because ya'll attack each other like both those statements are true, but I don't think either of them are.

I think that both sides want the same outcome (a balanced, fun game) but are in a disagreement on how to get there.

The fastest way to lower turret metagame share is to nerf them, hence the reason why turret hating folks want to go that route.

Riot Games (maker of League of Legends) has generated a ton of research on game balance, atmosphere, and community. A lot of that game balance research can also apply to analog gaming like X-Wing. They've found that when a game element is generally dominating the game that the instant reaction to nerf it is a poor knee-jerk response, because usually what happens is that something else generally comes up as dominant. The best way to deepen diversity in a game is to add new elements, leaving the raw power of individual components alone but adding in additional measures of "counterplay".

This is exactly why I wouldn't advocate for nerfs to PWTs, even though I agree they are less fun to fly against. I'd rather see new avenues of attack created through the addition of more game material (making ordinance really good against them, scenario play, etc) that allow me to directly combat them without setting the precedent of panic-nerfs.

Anti turret people want them toned down so they are not the automatic "best" choice, in general we like small fighters and it saddens us that they have largely been reduced to escort roles.

Turret "haters" do not want them nerfed through the ground by any means just equalled out.

Pro turret people obviously want them to remain on top for various reasons.

There have always been people who thought turrets are an issue but since wave four and the CR-90 came out fat turrets have become a whole new point of contention, they have some of the best dials combined with great damage mitigation and the ability to arc dodge while still getting a shot in every turn they are too strong in the minds of alot of people.

I don't think it's subjective that turrets ruin the game. The game is (supposed to be) about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent.

Says who? Who declared that the game is about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent?

well, tbf that's the activation phase in a nutshell

factor in the PS order of movement which will not change apart from a lucky crit, and maneuvers + predicting the opponent which then lead into the actions that can produce game-swinging results, and maneuvering + predicting become basically the ways in which the players get to directly interact with the game

after that, you got shooting which involves players selecting targets and then dice taking care of the rest (hopefully being properly modified by actions taken during the activation phase)

so yeah, that's most of the game. X-wing has no expansive resource management ala Warmachine's Focus (and actions are tied to maneuvering) nor its bevy of special abilities and differing ranges, which is fine because the game is very simple to pick up because of it and the maneuvering is very robust.

I'll have to agree with ficklegreendice here. Half the game, if not most of it is maneuvering. And yes, maneuvering a ship with a 360 arc does make it more forgiving, but I again disagree with the notion that 360 arcs eliminate this aspect of the game ENTIRELY.

If everyone had just a front facing arc, the meta would be a battle ground of PS9+ Barrel Rolling and Boosting out of arcs. If that's what you're into then that's fine, but it doesn't sound balanced to me.

r3-a2 should not be unique

all hail king Y-wing!

What is each side advocating for, exactly?

Are the anti-turret people advocating nerfing the PWT ships out of existence competitively?

Are the not-anti-turret people advocating that nothing needs to or should be done to mitigate the high metagame share these turrets have?

Because ya'll attack each other like both those statements are true, but I don't think either of them are.

I think that both sides want the same outcome (a balanced, fun game) but are in a disagreement on how to get there.

The fastest way to lower turret metagame share is to nerf them, hence the reason why turret hating folks want to go that route.

Riot Games (maker of League of Legends) has generated a ton of research on game balance, atmosphere, and community. A lot of that game balance research can also apply to analog gaming like X-Wing. They've found that when a game element is generally dominating the game that the instant reaction to nerf it is a poor knee-jerk response, because usually what happens is that something else generally comes up as dominant. The best way to deepen diversity in a game is to add new elements, leaving the raw power of individual components alone but adding in additional measures of "counterplay".

This is exactly why I wouldn't advocate for nerfs to PWTs, even though I agree they are less fun to fly against. I'd rather see new avenues of attack created through the addition of more game material (making ordinance really good against them, scenario play, etc) that allow me to directly combat them without setting the precedent of panic-nerfs.

Anti turret people want them toned down so they are not the automatic "best" choice, in general we like small fighters and it saddens us that they have largely been reduced to escort roles.

Turret "haters" do not want them nerfed through the ground by any means just equalled out.

Pro turret people obviously want them to remain on top for various reasons.

There have always been people who thought turrets are an issue but since wave four and the CR-90 came out fat turrets have become a whole new point of contention, they have some of the best dials combined with great damage mitigation and the ability to arc dodge while still getting a shot in every turn they are too strong in the minds of alot of people.

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you.

While I would agree with the opinion that turrets are probably the most reliable meta choice right now, they aren't the only choice. In the brobots vs Chirpy/Fel matchups I've watched, it was Fel that owned the spotlight and won the games when Chirpy/Fel won. Seems like a more complex situation than "PWTs are too good".

Nerfing something doesn't "equal out" anything necessarily. The only thing that you can guarantee happens when you institute a nerf is that the thing you are touching is worse. Even the Phantom "nerf" changed when a game mechanic happened in turn order, but left the raw "power" of the mechanic alone, where it even buffed the value of the Sigma as a blocker. It wasn't a nerf, it was a rebalance, shifting some of the power budget from arc-dodging and put it in blocking.

Pro-turret people and their "various reasons" sounds like vague conspiracy-theory talk. You are turning this into an "Us Versus Them" fight, and that is stupid.

What is each side advocating for, exactly?

Are the anti-turret people advocating nerfing the PWT ships out of existence competitively?

Are the not-anti-turret people advocating that nothing needs to or should be done to mitigate the high metagame share these turrets have?

Because ya'll attack each other like both those statements are true, but I don't think either of them are.

I think that both sides want the same outcome (a balanced, fun game) but are in a disagreement on how to get there.

The fastest way to lower turret metagame share is to nerf them, hence the reason why turret hating folks want to go that route.

Riot Games (maker of League of Legends) has generated a ton of research on game balance, atmosphere, and community. A lot of that game balance research can also apply to analog gaming like X-Wing. They've found that when a game element is generally dominating the game that the instant reaction to nerf it is a poor knee-jerk response, because usually what happens is that something else generally comes up as dominant. The best way to deepen diversity in a game is to add new elements, leaving the raw power of individual components alone but adding in additional measures of "counterplay".

This is exactly why I wouldn't advocate for nerfs to PWTs, even though I agree they are less fun to fly against. I'd rather see new avenues of attack created through the addition of more game material (making ordinance really good against them, scenario play, etc) that allow me to directly combat them without setting the precedent of panic-nerfs.

You've said it perfectly. I think everyone just wants a balanced game. And I agree that the best way is to introduce more counters, not to nerf.

In a game as extraordinary like X-Wing with its limitless combinations you're bound to find some that are better than others. It's FFGs job to identify these combos and consider what new things to introduce to counter them.

I'm fairly new to the game but from what I've heard the meta last year was Han, TIE Swarm, and Whisper. Since Wave 6, there's over a dozen pilots seeing success. Instead of the meta contracting it's expanding.

Each wave will introduce cards that will balance things out. FFG can't make everyone happy at once.

I'll have to agree with ficklegreendice here. Half the game, if not most of it is maneuvering.

There is a fallacy hiding in this thread. It is this: somehow, it is argued, the claim that "the game is about maneuvering" leads to "the game should be about maneuvering."

The first is identifiably false. The second is something I could get into - planning and guessing maneuvers is fun I think - but nevertheless entirely subjective and most importantly: even if the first claim is true to any degree, the second does not follow from it.

To all whom it concerns: make up your mind, and don't be so **** fallacious.

I'll have to agree with ficklegreendice here. Half the game, if not most of it is maneuvering.

The above is only partially true: since turrets shift the balance of the game away from maneuvering, then the game is not mostly about maneuvering, and even saying that 'half of it' is about maneuvering seems a stretch, again if you consider the influence of turrets.

There is a fallacy hiding in this thread. It is this: somehow, it is argued, the claim that "the game is about maneuvering" leads to "the game should be about maneuvering."

The first is identifiably false. The second is something I could get into - planning and guessing maneuvers is fun I think - but nevertheless entirely subjective and most importantly: even if the first claim is true to any degree, the second does not follow from it.

To all whom it concerns: make up your mind, and don't be so **** fallacious.

I think your definition of maneuvering might be different from mine.

If by maneuvering you mean placing your ship in a position in which you can obtain a shot while simultaneously avoiding them, then yes I agree with you.

If by maneuvering you mean choosing dials, and placing templates on the board, then I'm confused as that is an entire phase of the game.

Maneuvering always matters.

Arc-dodging doesn't always matter.

Maneuvering always matters.

aye even the definition of arc-dodging is a tad shady

against arced ships, I often "arc-dodge" by forcing them away from a bad position (either arranging a lot of arcs in an area to suggest that they should **** off, and if they do they can't shoot, or flying a damaged ship into the arcs of its friendlies/near obstructions,forcing a horrible facing on the opponent or a poor damage spread)

manuevers are a very complex part of the game (they're the majority of all possible strategies/tactics), though I do feel that some of the nuance is lost for anyone facing a turret, not flying it

I'll have to agree with ficklegreendice here. Half the game, if not most of it is maneuvering.

The above is only partially true: since turrets shift the balance of the game away from maneuvering, then the game is not mostly about maneuvering, and even saying that 'half of it' is about maneuvering seems a stretch, again if you consider the influence of turrets.

There is a fallacy hiding in this thread. It is this: somehow, it is argued, the claim that "the game is about maneuvering" leads to "the game should be about maneuvering."

The first is identifiably false. The second is something I could get into - planning and guessing maneuvers is fun I think - but nevertheless entirely subjective and most importantly: even if the first claim is true to any degree, the second does not follow from it.

To all whom it concerns: make up your mind, and don't be so **** fallacious.

Maneuvering always matters.

I did not say anything about whether or not it mattered. In fact the gist of my post wasn't even about maneuvering at all. But perhaps you find that too complex?

For a post that wasn't about maneuvering at all, you sure did say the word enough times. I'm sorry my tiny brain couldn't comprehend your complex language skills.

For a post that wasn't about maneuvering at all, you sure did say the word enough times. I'm sorry my tiny brain couldn't comprehend your complex language skills.

Then look a bit closer at this: "even if the first claim is true to any degree, the second does not follow from it." In other words: even if the game is 'mostly about' (your original words, later you changed that to something like "maneuvering matters" - which do you prefer?) maneuvering, it still doesn't follow that it should be. Claiming otherwise would be fallacious.

Ultimately, it is irrelevant how much of the game is about maneuvering, how you define it or to what degree it matters: there are turrets, and there is nothing in the rules suggesting that they should not be part of the game.

For a post that wasn't about maneuvering at all, you sure did say the word enough times. I'm sorry my tiny brain couldn't comprehend your complex language skills.

Then look a bit closer at this: "even if the first claim is true to any degree, the second does not follow from it." In other words: even if the game is 'mostly about' (your original words, later you changed that to something like "maneuvering matters" - which do you prefer?) maneuvering, it still doesn't follow that it should be. Claiming otherwise would be fallacious.

Ultimately, it is irrelevant how much of the game is about maneuvering, how you define it or to what degree it matters: there are turrets, and there is nothing in the rules suggesting that they should not be part of the game.

I think you are sort of missing the point.

Anti-turret people are making the claim that turrets reduce the impact of a critical dimension of the game, which is maneuvering your ships in a fashion that satisfies two conditions:

a) There is an enemy that you can shoot at

b) The enemy cannot shoot at you

With a turret you only really need to worry about b) because if a) is true for your opponent, it is also true for you. Playing a game where you have to worry about both conditions where your opponent only has to worry about one theoretically puts you at a disadvantage.

Fortunately, there are some mitigating factors:

1) Turrets tend to be high-point-value ships, meaning that you can't field many red dice for your points.

2) Turret ships don't have many green dice. (3PO was probably a mistake, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an errata to that card at some point.)

3) Autothrusters are a thing

Unfortunately, because of the various factors of tournament play and squad building two ship lists are dominating, meaning that mitigating factor #1 isn't really a problem, and #3 doesn't seem to quite be enough because the ship pool that can use it is rather limited.

The debate isn't that turrets shouldn't be a part of the game, the debate is between changing the rules so that turrets have to worry about both maneuvering conditions (see the choose your arc suggestion) and adding in additional mitigating factors (ordinance changes and the like).

For a post that wasn't about maneuvering at all, you sure did say the word enough times. I'm sorry my tiny brain couldn't comprehend your complex language skills.

Then look a bit closer at this: "even if the first claim is true to any degree, the second does not follow from it." In other words: even if the game is 'mostly about' (your original words, later you changed that to something like "maneuvering matters" - which do you prefer?) maneuvering, it still doesn't follow that it should be. Claiming otherwise would be fallacious.

Ultimately, it is irrelevant how much of the game is about maneuvering, how you define it or to what degree it matters: there are turrets, and there is nothing in the rules suggesting that they should not be part of the game.

Right, and if you had completely read the original post, you would have noticed I mentioned how turrets can be a bit more forgiving in this facet of the game, but doesn't remove it entirely. Is it an integral part of the game? Yes, otherwise there wouldn't be dials and precise templates.

To what degree? Depends on the list and match up. Swarms don't care they just want to muddle up the board and mess you up. Turrets don't care, they can shoot you anyways as long as you're in range. Arc dodgers? They care a lot, as it determines which actions they take afterwards.

TL;DR Is the game about maneuvering? Yes. To what degree? Depends on what's on the board.

It is entirely relevant how much of the game is about manuevering, that's the core of a player's input in this game

This isn't a narrative experience like D&D or Betrayal at the House on a hill, this is a tactical game where you have to have more than just the dice rolls to keep someone invested.

Turrets should definitely exist to play around the core manuevering principles, it's only PWTs that go overboard with being able to all enemies in range (and, thanks to all max ranges being the same, they can target any ship that could shoot them) outside of very outlying factors like landing on a space peanut or Biggs. Apart from the YT-1300 and the VT-49, no other turret in the game has this kind of impact. Even the Yt-2400 (and the future K-wing) are built so inefficiently as to render their PWT as a fallback mechanic, not as the primary method of attack (meaning the opponent gets a lot by avoiding the secondary weapons/bombs and only facing the 2-dice turret). Even the Outrider has very integral restrictions placed on its primary method of attack (and even the range 1-3 mangler suffers at range 1 relative to the PWT)

These restrictions and weaknesses give opponents something to play around without having to invest in auto-thrusters. Otherwise, there is simply less to do when engaging PWTs relative to any other ship in the game.

I don't think it's subjective that turrets ruin the game. The game is (supposed to be) about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent.

Says who? Who declared that the game is about maneuvering your ships well and anticipating your opponent?

well, tbf that's the activation phase in a nutshell

factor in the PS order of movement which will not change apart from a lucky crit, and maneuvers + predicting the opponent which then lead into the actions that can produce game-swinging results, and maneuvering + predicting become basically the ways in which the players get to directly interact with the game

after that, you got shooting which involves players selecting targets and then dice taking care of the rest (hopefully being properly modified by actions taken during the activation phase)

so yeah, that's most of the game. X-wing has no expansive resource management ala Warmachine's Focus (and actions are tied to maneuvering) nor its bevy of special abilities and differing ranges, which is fine because the game is very simple to pick up because of it and the maneuvering is very robust.

Thanks for taking my question out of context. I asked the question of Paragoonba to point out that his subjective opinion was just that - subjective. That's all.

Jacob

I think you are sort of missing the point.

Anti-turret people are making the claim that turrets reduce the impact of a critical dimension of the game, which is maneuvering your ships in a fashion that satisfies two conditions:

a) There is an enemy that you can shoot at

b) The enemy cannot shoot at you

Or, as I put it in an earlier post: "turrets shift the balance of the game away from maneuvering." I did not miss what you write here, and I don't deny it - except that the word "critical" is ambiguous.

The debate isn't that turrets shouldn't be a part of the game, the debate is between changing the rules so that turrets have to worry about both maneuvering conditions (see the choose your arc suggestion) and adding in additional mitigating factors (ordinance changes and the like).

As has been pointed out before, it is subjective how the game should be played. Just pointing out how important maneuvering is or what turrets do doesn't cut it as an argument for anything. No bare description of the game can argue that turrets should change. If you think something is a "critical dimension" of the game, then also explain why this should also be normative, some ideal that is worth 'going for'. Anything that can rationalize why you're jumping from 'is' to 'ought'.

no, you asked "Who declared the game game is about manuevering your ships well and anticipating your opponent?"

Paragoomba might agree about how integral manuevering is to the game, but he wasn't the one who declared it to be so

This doesn't change my point about the fallacy. No matter how turrets influence maneuvering, there is nothing that suggests there should be any change - removing turrets altogether, changing the rules or including another upgrade fix.

As has been pointed out before, it is subjective how the game should be played. Just pointing out how important maneuvering is or what turrets do doesn't cut it as an argument for anything. No bare description of the game can argue that turrets should change. If you think something is a "critical dimension" of the game, then also explain why this should also be normative, some ideal that is worth 'going for'. Anything that can rationalize why you're jumping from 'is' to 'ought'.

Then nothing should ever be changed because everything is subjective. I can't tell if you are a libertarian or a nihilist.

The data says turrets make up slightly over 50% of the winning Regionals lists, suggesting they have an above-average share of the meta. The goal of both "sides" is a balanced game. The debate is the method of getting there. So yes, there is something that suggests there should be change.

One camp is saying "We aren't moving fast enough" and the other is saying "Stop trying to move so fast".

Not to mention that things are going to change no matter what because FFG will be releasing more content.

Why is it so bad to debate about the direction that these changes should take?

The game is going to change regardless of whether or not something included in it says it should.

The worst part about this thread is the title, because it automatically assumes an aggressive emotional stance, but overall I've personally found the posts to be pretty valuable because I think I better understand the point of view of the people with a different opinion from me.

I still think I'm right, but I'm hoping that understanding where they are coming from will allow me to frame what I'm trying to explain in a fashion that is meaningful to them. Your point is meaningless.

no, you asked "Who declared the game game is about manuevering your ships well and anticipating your opponent?"

Paragoomba might agree about how integral manuevering is to the game, but he wasn't the one who declared it to be so

Actually, if you go back to page 5 and re-read his comment and then my quote and response, you'll see that Paragoomba states "I don't think this is subjective...the game is (supposed to be) about maneuvering."

My comment was only in response to that statement. I made a comment that I don't think it is, and others don't as well, which is exactly what makes it subjective.

I actually see maneuvering and guessing my opponents intentions only one element of the game, not its core section.

So, I'm not sure why you're arguing about this. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree with me here with this statement: "This opinion of mine is subjective. It is my opinion, and that is what makes my thought and statement subjective, because it comes from me."

That's my point. If you think something is true and it is not universally agreed upon, that thought is a subjective thought. To argue that yours is the only opinion and that other people don't believe things are different is a large part of the bitter animosity people see here.

My question still stands. "When are people around here going to make it ok for others to have differences of opinion?"

Jacob

Then nothing should ever be changed because everything is subjective.

What I do want to stress is this: be clear about what you think is the right direction to go in, rather than just state facts about the game and assume that every reader will understand what is so good or bad about it. Ficklegreendice's longish post above is exemplary: he says a lot about the impact of turrets, but really skims the issue exactly why it is a bad thing.

And this is, in fact, a very problematic issue, because many apparently like to play with PWTs, making the argument that it is 'no fun' really difficult to maintain. If you're looking for the underlying disagreement, then I suspect it has to do with things that are not mentioned very often. I'm not particularly on any side here, but have noticed that playing with turrets and EU can create situations where the opponent is more or less no longer able to do anything meaningful other than roll dice and hope for the best. But then again, maybe it's up to the opponent to prevent such a situation.

It reminds me a lot of the cycling races I watch: some races are boring for hours until the last km, where there is a sprint to decide who will win. Fans can get incredibly angry when another professes his love or hate for these sprints.

I can't tell if you are a libertarian or a nihilist.

The worst part about this thread is the title, because it automatically assumes an aggressive emotional stance, but overall I've personally found the posts to be pretty valuable because I think I better understand the point of view of the people with a different opinion from me.

I still think I'm right, but I'm hoping that understanding where they are coming from will allow me to frame what I'm trying to explain in a fashion that is meaningful to them. Your point is meaningless.