I play to win and have fun, but the 2 are not necessarily interlocked, after all I love knowledge and you learn more from a loss than a victory. I was pretty burned out after the regionals season and it's been a nice break to sit back on Vassal and fly not top tier stuff. I think it is important to keep the community growing by not always flying super competitive lists. If the local tournament players and I rolled up every game night with double falcon, superdash, 4B etc. and proceeded to stomp the casual lists no one would show up to play besides the 3 of us. Keeping it relaxed and not super try-hard outside of a tournament setting is very important to fostering a healthy local community so the more experienced players can help those just getting in get to the next level.

But at tournaments...I'll be polite and respectful, but I'm there to win

I'm a little tired of this whole "play to win" vs "play to have fun" false dichotomy. Not only is it almost always used as a way to either berate competitive players or to justifying one's own distaste for competitive play, it also helps promote this stupid idea that if you play competitively, you're there to win at all costs.

This is an inherently competitive game. It's one side vs another side with the winner being the one that most destroys the other. That doesn't mean you have to net-deck and build a list you don't want to run. It doesn't mean you have to be a rules lawyer, either. It doesn't mean you have to be a gamesman instead of a sportsman. It doesn't mean you can't run generic T-65s. It doesn't mean casual play is more fun than competitive play or vice-versa.

Everyone is here to have fun by playing the game. Period. That's all there is. Stop trying to set up a divide between players.

I really don't like that people make the distinction between "fun" and "competitive" because it implies that the two are mutually exclusive.

I believe I mentioned those whose enjoyment comes from competition, who find me annoying because I just enjoy playing the game and telling a story.

I think "fun" as it is used here refers to uncompetitive play. Which is a bit of an oxymoron now that I think about it. Anyway, I don't think people are saying those who play competitive are sombre and grim faced, just that there are those whose insistence on "my list is better than your list" and "your list offends me because it is what everyone is doing" that suck all the fun from everyone else.

I once read a thread where people were arguing over the meaning of "fly casual".

Unfortunately, such attitudes are mostly from "serious competitive players" and the mud often sticks to "fun competitive players" too.

Which it shouldn't.

I only just started going to X-Wing tournaments in the past year.

Was it fun? Yes.

Will I go again? Maybe.

I mostly play what people call "casual" but no matter what game I play, I almost always play by tournament rules. Tournament rules give you a standard to play by. It's like having another language. When you meet someone new, you can immediately say, "Hey, let's play standard tournament rules," and you'll both know what to expect. When epic starts taking off more, I'll start playing by epic tournament rules.

I like trying to find new combos and flying what I like. Before Scum came out, I was flying Boba Fett + Darth Vader as my squad. Both were tricked out. It was a whole lot of fun and I learned a lot by playing that list even though it would have been condemned on these forums. So even though I play tournament rules, I don't always build competitive squads. I just build squads I want try out.

EDIT: Oh, and fixing things isn't just a matter of competition. Look at how much more FUN it is to fly Vader now that he has the new gear. If stuff like that can happen to some of the less-enticing ships, I welcome it with open arms!

Unfortunately there comes a point to some players where the desire to win and exploit gaps in the ruleset overides the actual act of 'playing a game', which by definition has to be fun for both players or it becomes a 'maths exercise' (as aforementioned) for at least one of them.

I know xwing isnt 40 but i recal a 40k GT where a guy did very well by taking around 60 basic tactical marines with bolters and no upgrades, he just maxed out of basic troopers.

He did this because he knew that there was no way you could kill all of them before the end of the game and the odds were he's end up in 'possession' of more table quarters or at very least contest every one he didnt 'own'.

A list not really in keeping in the spirit of the game with a strategy of 'run into corners and take cover until time runs out'

Not really much fun for the other guy. Totally legal though and he did well.

I'd hate to see people treat xwing like that.

Sure he was one guy out of 100 but in *every* tournament i ran there were 3 to 5 guys with lists like that, who slow played their turn but rushed others, misenterpreted rules on purpose.

So that mean each weekend 15 to 25 games would have been horrid to be part of.

I had a mate pack up in turn 2 of a GT once and concede the game, not because he was actually going to lose but because the playing experience was so awful against a stalling min max eldar player who kept conveniently 'forgetting' about rules but remembering them when it was my mates turn.

Again , perhaps apples and oranges being different systems but i think the problem is when you add prizes and prestige to stuff.

I work in the airsoft industry, the game is honestly based and like paintball (but with no paint marks), we've never tried a competetive prize based event because we just know that even the normally 'good guys' will 'not notice i was hit' or 'oh it must have hit my webbing , i didnt feel it'

yes the game inherently has competition but it also inherently has *narrative* and i think sometimes on this forum we concentrate too much on the former and not enough on the latter.

Personally i try and complete my objective in the game/story (and by default 'win' ) but a win where i massacre an opponent and nothing interesting happens is less of a 'win' than a game where i lose but some really cool events happen, near misses, lucky saves and interesting lists.

Fun only. Serious fun.

Unfortunately there comes a point to some players where the desire to win and exploit gaps in the ruleset overides the actual act of 'playing a game', which by definition has to be fun for both players or it becomes a 'maths exercise' (as aforementioned) for at least one of them.

I know xwing isnt 40 but i recal a 40k GT where a guy did very well by taking around 60 basic tactical marines with bolters and no upgrades, he just maxed out of basic troopers.

He did this because he knew that there was no way you could kill all of them before the end of the game and the odds were he's end up in 'possession' of more table quarters or at very least contest every one he didnt 'own'.

A list not really in keeping in the spirit of the game with a strategy of 'run into corners and take cover until time runs out'

Not really much fun for the other guy. Totally legal though and he did well.

I'd hate to see people treat xwing like that.

Sure he was one guy out of 100 but in *every* tournament i ran there were 3 to 5 guys with lists like that, who slow played their turn but rushed others, misenterpreted rules on purpose.

So that mean each weekend 15 to 25 games would have been horrid to be part of.

I had a mate pack up in turn 2 of a GT once and concede the game, not because he was actually going to lose but because the playing experience was so awful against a stalling min max eldar player who kept conveniently 'forgetting' about rules but remembering them when it was my mates turn.

Again , perhaps apples and oranges being different systems but i think the problem is when you add prizes and prestige to stuff.

I work in the airsoft industry, the game is honestly based and like paintball (but with no paint marks), we've never tried a competetive prize based event because we just know that even the normally 'good guys' will 'not notice i was hit' or 'oh it must have hit my webbing , i didnt feel it'

yes the game inherently has competition but it also inherently has *narrative* and i think sometimes on this forum we concentrate too much on the former and not enough on the latter.

Personally i try and complete my objective in the game/story (and by default 'win' ) but a win where i massacre an opponent and nothing interesting happens is less of a 'win' than a game where i lose but some really cool events happen, near misses, lucky saves and interesting lists.

I would like this... but... out of likes, dangit!

I'll like you liking it then!

I play for fun. I do play to win but I like to play casual. We don't sweat marginally going off the edge or a rare 'oops can I take that back'.

For me the whole points balancing act has taken some of the fun out of the game which is why I'm moving away from it and caring a lot less. I don't mind that freighters and bombers can't go head to head with fighters and I never felt that was a big deal. Instead of the right tool for the job or the right squad for the mission we've moved into fractional point balances where all things should be equal compared to a fighter. If we ever get there I'm sure someone will say we need a fix because the X-Wing can't carry as much ordnance as a K-Wing.

I like to see variety and squads created for special purposes. It adds flavor. That's why I wish FFG would come out with Missions with suggested squads. Less deck building more playing.

I'll like you liking it then!

And remember my job was running 'organised play' for the biggest wargames company in the world at the time.

I ran a GT or campain weekend for one system or another about twice a month.

I ran regionals for them in other cities (conflict series of events), heck they used to fly me to other countries to advise people on how to set up tournaments.

So i have a fairly good grasp on the nature of competetive players

Dont get me wrong, most guys were pretty cool, probably still not the games i'd want to have at home but the real divs, they ruined it for a lot of people.

Unfortunately there comes a point to some players where the desire to win and exploit gaps in the ruleset overides the actual act of 'playing a game', which by definition has to be fun for both players or it becomes a 'maths exercise' (as aforementioned) for at least one of them.

I know xwing isnt 40 but i recal a 40k GT where a guy did very well by taking around 60 basic tactical marines with bolters and no upgrades, he just maxed out of basic troopers.

He did this because he knew that there was no way you could kill all of them before the end of the game and the odds were he's end up in 'possession' of more table quarters or at very least contest every one he didnt 'own'.

A list not really in keeping in the spirit of the game with a strategy of 'run into corners and take cover until time runs out'

Not really much fun for the other guy. Totally legal though and he did well.

I'd hate to see people treat xwing like that.

Sure he was one guy out of 100 but in *every* tournament i ran there were 3 to 5 guys with lists like that, who slow played their turn but rushed others, misenterpreted rules on purpose.

So that mean each weekend 15 to 25 games would have been horrid to be part of.

I had a mate pack up in turn 2 of a GT once and concede the game, not because he was actually going to lose but because the playing experience was so awful against a stalling min max eldar player who kept conveniently 'forgetting' about rules but remembering them when it was my mates turn.

Again , perhaps apples and oranges being different systems but i think the problem is when you add prizes and prestige to stuff.

I work in the airsoft industry, the game is honestly based and like paintball (but with no paint marks), we've never tried a competetive prize based event because we just know that even the normally 'good guys' will 'not notice i was hit' or 'oh it must have hit my webbing , i didnt feel it'

yes the game inherently has competition but it also inherently has *narrative* and i think sometimes on this forum we concentrate too much on the former and not enough on the latter.

Personally i try and complete my objective in the game/story (and by default 'win' ) but a win where i massacre an opponent and nothing interesting happens is less of a 'win' than a game where i lose but some really cool events happen, near misses, lucky saves and interesting lists.

This is my problem with narrative players- they see a flaw in the game, but then blame the players for taking advantage of it rather than blaming the game design. It creates an environment of unspoken accusations, assumptions, instead of openness.

The players shouldn't have to buy into a game's theme and play the game a certain way for the narrative to work- that's on the game designer to make sure the best moves make sense. I think FFG has done a pretty good job of this but they could improve. Other game companies seem to demand the players police things to cover up for their laziness in game design.

Oh! I have fun playing X-wing, even at tournaments.

If you're not having fun playing a game you enjoy, you must be doing something wrong. Take a pill, play a game, and have fun . . . or "Fly casual", if you will

People playing how Gadge described, using ruleset glitches and cheapness is the #1 reason why I've not played a 40k game in over 12 months.

Let's face it, if i can afford buying entire waves at a time fo x-wing, I could afford 40K's prices for upping my armies. I just choose not to because I'm losing interest.

As always, forge the narrative.

Gadge, one day I'd very much like to get in a campaign with you.

Panzeh - There are always WAAC players (win at all costs) no matter the game, who use the cheapest, broken nastiest combos. They exist, no-one actually likes to play them. These are the guys who just netlist. I have a friend kinda like that, and has done some truly dirty moves. I will admit though, that when said dirty moves backfire it does make my month.

40k is horrid for some of the broken combos. So, what might be a tough matchup in x-wing, in 40k you might get "oh you have no chance of winning simply due to the list matchup".

You have a low post count so I will assume you weren't here for the post wave 4 crying over Phantoms and Fat Han.

People playing how Gadge described, using ruleset glitches and cheapness is the #1 reason why I've not played a 40k game in over 12 months.

Let's face it, if i can afford buying entire waves at a time fo x-wing, I could afford 40K's prices for upping my armies. I just choose not to because I'm losing interest.

As always, forge the narrative.

Gadge, one day I'd very much like to get in a campaign with you.

Panzeh - There are always WAAC players (win at all costs) no matter the game, who use the cheapest, broken nastiest combos.

You have a low post count so I will assume you weren't here for the post wave 4 crying over Phantoms and Fat Han.

I know the story of those things- I would never criticize someone's list composition for being 'too good'. I would criticize FFG for making things too good, but never somebody for using them.

If the cheapest, broken, nastiest combos ruin the game, don't hate the player hate the game. I think that's a far more 'casual' attitude than "IF YOU PLAY THIS THING IN THIS GAME YOU ARE A WAAC PLAYER" and it gives FFG a pass if you think they made an error.

Sorry, i dont get that 'if there is a loophole in the rules its my duty to exploit them in order to win' mindset.

Think about the letter of the law and the spirit of the law in very real terms.

Would it be ok to kill someone if you found out there was a 1790s by law that said you could shoot a native american from the city gates if he was in view by sunset (there are odd uk laws about the welsh like that....)

Sure it might be 'legal' but only an psycho would do it.

To a lesser degree knowing full well the *intent* of a ruleset but reading it literally to win isn't playing a game, its being a tabletop lawyer!

Why did you get into xwing?

I imagine it was for the narrative, the star wars universe, the ability to play out dogfights over the death star.

I cant imagine anyone went , wow that range ruler looks amazing, ive got to play this game.

and Darius APB, if you're ever in my area consider yourself invited to a gaming day

For fun. I play to win meaning I try to fly my best but the attitude at the table is casual. I may try another store tourney in the future (more prepared now) but I have no burning desire to compete. I do enjoy playing against stronger players: makes me a better player.

Why did you get into xwing?

I imagine it was for the narrative, the star wars universe, the ability to play out dogfights over the death star.

I cant imagine anyone went , wow that range ruler looks amazing, ive got to play this game.

I got in because it has a good competitive community and is a pretty good, short competitive game without passive-aggressive hobbyist sniping. I don't even care that much for star wars.

Does the spirit of the game say "make passive-aggressive comments about a guy who plays super dash and corran or who has the lead and starts flying defensively knowing how tournaments work?" Nah. I'm not going to go into hypotheticals here.

I see your point, you are saying that these combos need to be better locked down. You know, like someone putting a navigator on a huge ship and autoramming everyone, or using 3 tacticians to superstress.

Ooooohhhh.

The worst of them are FAQ'ed out, which is why I play x-wing not 40k.

My take on life is pretty simple.

If it feeds my family; pays the mortgage and allows me to splash out every now on and then on the nice things in life, then I take it (sort of) seriously.

The X-Wing Miniatures game doesn't do any of these things for me, so I don't.

It's a game I play, so I do it for fun, whether it's in a tournament setting or not.

Cheers

Baaa

Don't we all play for fun ? But what is fun for one is not fun for another. Fun is an entirely subjective term. Some people have fun playing competitive, some have fun playing epic, some have fun playing with beer and pretzels nearby, it's all right and fine.

Don't we all play for fun ? But what is fun for one is not fun for another. Fun is an entirely subjective term. Some people have fun playing competitive, some have fun playing epic, some have fun playing with beer and pretzels nearby, it's all right and fine.

The problem with that is that after a few beers I'd be using a pretzel as a movement dial. On the bright side, it probably wouldn't affect my gameplay too much though.

Cheers

Baaa

Some people like narrative, some like structured.. No right or wrong way to play a game. But there are incompatible mindsets.

Play for fun all the time! Ive entered one store tourney, and that was fun, but most of the time im playing just to fly mothereffing Star Wars ships!!! The only real competition is between my son and I...you know the boy wants to beat Dad.

Can you play this game for money?