We have just finished the 4th world championship of Star Wars X-Wing. For the 3rd year in a row Paul Heaver has pulled off the top spot and collected a trophy. This victory has certainly cemented his dominance in this game for years to come. Paul clearly operates at a higher level then the rest of us. We can all assume Paul is included in the play test group for X-Wing since he has helped design cards. This should be the case as he does see the game just slightly different and that is an invaluable voice to have to influence the game. Now I'm not taking anything away from Paul as he won under the current circumstances that are allowed but......

Should play testers be allowed to play in Regionals, Nationals and Worlds?

Being in the play test group you get early exposure to new cards and ships that are coming down the pipe. It's part of the job of the play tester to get in as many games as possible to find the balance of these cards. I assume they also get early exposure to new rule changes such as the half point shift for large bases. Does this extra time and experience give the testers a jump start to the meta?

Testers should be competitive and understand that environment to properly judge cards and ships. If testers are getting 6-month of practice or better then the rest of us, does it create an unfair advantage? It could start to seem a little like insider trading. The hardest part foe myself is the sudden rule changes that influence the meta. Yes, there is a fair amount of time for the rest of us to get use to new rules but for testers of that rule, they have mastered it.

By allowing testers in the higher levels of tournament play, could that influence their choices as to what makes it in the game or not. If I hate playing against B-Wings and a card needs tested that hurts B-Wings do I as a tester push for the release of that card? If a card makes B-Wings a little better do I fight against it?

Other games have testers out in the community as X-Wing does. Very few of these games allow their testers to compete for prizes. Should X-Wing be the same?

Of course they should be allowed.

If you hire the right playtesters, it won't matter. Don't hire scumbags and you won't have problems.

Besides, we are not talking about cash prizes. The inherent value of the prizes at stake is really pretty minimal.

Having playtested for a different FFG game, I think you are assuming playtesters have way more power than they actually have.

Having playtested for a different FFG game, I think you are assuming playtesters have way more power than they actually have.

"Knowledge is Power", Im certain I've heard that before somewhere.

And why not? Plus, if you lose against a pro, well, you know, he was a pro, but if you WIN? That's a great topping on a perfect cake

Having playtested for a different FFG game, I think you are assuming playtesters have way more power than they actually have.

"Knowledge is Power", Im certain I've heard that before somewhere.

"No, power is power" (Cersei Lannister)

Having playtested for a different FFG game, I think you are assuming playtesters have way more power than they actually have.

Can confirm. Also, playtesters don't receive anything like "you must play this way or that way", they learn from scratch, like anybody else. They clearly have a longer run on the same products, so they can have a minimal edge, but not so decisive

Having playtested for a different FFG game, I think you are assuming playtesters have way more power than they actually have.

"Knowledge is Power", Im certain I've heard that before somewhere.

Yeah, but I was referring to the part where you said, "If I hate playing against B-Wings and a card needs tested that hurts B-Wings do I as a tester push for the release of that card? If a card makes B-Wings a little better do I fight against it?"

If you do not allow playtesters to play in those events you will find yourself with no competent playtesters. Playtesters are not paid, it isn't a job. They are volunteers. If you forced players to choose between playtesting and actually playing the game in events, 99% would choose to not be a playtester. Your playtest group would lose a large amount of likely it's most diligent, invested, and competent playtesters.

I get the sense that you are generally unaware of how playtest processes work and what impact playtesters actually have.

Do you really think it is to a competitive players advantage to split thier time between the game that they will be playing in events and the game that might exist a year plus from now? Additionally do you think it's advantageous to have to share all of your secret tech with all the other playtesters, as that is what you'd be doing in providing your playtest findings.

Lastly, I think you vastly overestimate what an individual playtester is going to be able to do in regards to swaying the game to where they want. Different playtest groups are going to come to different conclusions, conclusions that FFG may just plain ignore. There is no ability for a playtester to tank a certain ship type, as you've suggested, because that would require all the playtesters colluding on the endeavor and FFG agreeing with them. That has no chance of happening.

As it wasn't some broken combo, but rather great flying that got Paul his winnings, I am not worried about it at all. This game relies so much on positioning relative to card combos that there seems to be very little the playtesters could gain from their "inside knowledge". Let the playtesters play!

I'm sure FFG locks down their testers under a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, as to protect the brand. The advantage (or non-advantage) of play testers in worlds would be easy to see. All we would have to do is see how many of the total players were testers and where they finished. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen as I'm sure as part of the NDA your not allowed to say wether your a tester or not.

Complaining about the same player always winning? I'm certain I have already seen that.

Seriously, the guy is probably just a super good tactician. Stop trying to see conspiracy everywhere.

The advantage (or non-advantage) of play testers in worlds would be easy to see.

That wouldn't actually prove anything other than that the play testers are good player as well. In fact I'd assume that FFG would try to recruit people who do well at regionals and worlds to be play testers. People like that clearly have a deep understanding of the game and might make better play testers.

Also your whole premise is flawed. Having early access to the T-70 isn't going to help Paul fly it better. Especially considering that for much of that time he'll be playing with cards that are likely to be changed between then and release.

We have seen a number of cards on the X-Wing Wiki that are fundamentally different than the ones released.

The only way a play tester could really have any sort of advantage is with ships released a week or two prior to that event. Even then it's iffy, it's not like people aren't using proxies of them sometimes 3-4 months before they're released.

Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen as I'm sure as part of the NDA your not allowed to say wether your a tester or not.

I believe you cannot reveal your status as a playtester until the product is available. Currently, a playtester should be able to say they playtested wave VII, but would not be able to comment about whether they playtested for wave VIII.

But seriously, have you heard how hard Paul trains for Worlds? He practices opening moves and flight patterns during his lunch break! I think there is way more to his success than a few months' lead time on products. Besides, half of the time you're playtesting, you're using something that doesn't even make it into the final game.

I think the OP is confusing having access to something (cards, rules, information) to operational capability. First off, anyone who can play X Wing for ten hours a day two days in a row, and win all of those games, pretty much deserves to win them.

Second of all, spending time in a small, closed cabal of players which can't discuss any game stuff with outside isn't magically going to make you a better player. If anything, it'll do the opposite. There's always people who figure out what they need to do right off the bat and people who cling to a bad idea no matter how many times they lose doing the same stupid thing. Which is what you are doing now.

Ahh, this old gem.

Playtesters absolutely should be allowed to compete. Hell, I feel bad for Alex Davy, because he wants to play in Regionals, but isn't allowed to. Heck, he has to travel for Store Championships.

This whole thread is operating on a few fallacies. #1 is that the playtesters know the final versions of cards. You have heard of how many iterations Cloaking and the Ghost went through, right? Heck, the final product may not even be the last version the playtester's saw. #2 is the assumption that their prep would still be valid. I'm sorry, just because your a playtester, does not mean you can predict the meta shifts when the product is released. Combined with the fact that they may still be playtesting something new and the old playtest stuff was half a year ago... Even the designers have commented on how hard it is to keep track of what we know compared to what they know.

And to be quite frank, even if they did have perfect foreknowledge of releases, I'm not too certain how valuable this would be. This isn't a card game. The game isn't lost or won at squad reveal. How you fly a squad is still very important to this game.

There's always people who figure out what they need to do right off the bat and people who cling to a bad idea no matter how many times they lose doing the same stupid thing. Which is what you are doing now.

Well, I thank you for the insight of my intelligence.

Lets make this easy for all the readers, If you have commented on this tread and have play tested a released product in X-Wing raise your hand. This would show a bias in the opinion you have. such as my opinion is biased towards the latter as I'm not a play tester.

I'm sure FFG locks down their testers under a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, as to protect the brand. The advantage (or non-advantage) of play testers in worlds would be easy to see. All we would have to do is see how many of the total players were testers and where they finished. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen as I'm sure as part of the NDA your not allowed to say wether your a tester or not.

The play testers are listed in the credits for each expansion, if you actually look at that sheet in the insert of your blisters.

This is the second time since worlds that I have seen someone bash on Paul for winning the title for a third time, and it annoys me to no end. Remember that old saying "If you don't have something nice to same, don't say anything at all" Its things like this that start tearing the community apart and its uncalled for. I have two questions for you,

1. Have you ever met the walking strategy computer known as Paul Heaver? The man is the nicest guy you'll ever meet and has nothing but good thing to say about other players I've had him commentate one of my games once on Twitch during an event at a local event once and not once did he say anything demeaning about my own or my opponents moves or actions during the game, he was intrigued and analyzing us the whole time to better explain it to everyone watching. Also, Paul doesn't always use the most powerful ships or upgrades in his lists. This year his main go to pilot was Poe who yes is new and amazing but look what else he flew, 2 Gold squadron Y's with tlt's and a bandit. Poe is the only new ship he used, the rest are from 3 waves or more ago. Last year, Fat Han plus three bandits. Again 1 elite plus three wingmen of little to no consequence but look how he flew the list. Playtesting had nothing to do with Paul being who he is, and lets just leave it at that.

2. Do you think playtesters have a final say in a pilots ability, stats, or pilot skill? Or an upgrades cards ability and wording? From how it was explained to me by friends the developers send out ideas to the testers and they try it out and send in recommendations, the developer can choose to heed the testers advice or not, so somehing they try in the testing phase could be totally different when released to the game. Playtesters have very little say in the final product and no two playtesters think alike so one could send in one idea while a second sends in a completely opposite idea.

So in answer to your initial question, YES playtesters should continue to play in competitive events cahse the work just as hard as the rest of us when the final product comes around. Don't hate on a certain group of players because you think they know everything when they don't. I can garuantee Nathan Eide was not a playtester and look how well he did!!

I know at least three play testers that went to Worlds and the best placed among them was in the low 50's.

Being a play tester != World Champion potential.

While I am on the playtest group, so I can provide feedback on the cards I've designed, I don't actually do much playtesting. I've found that it interferes with practicing for Regionals, Worlds, etc. Generally, I've just provided my gut inputs on cards ("I'd never play this in a game", etc) and then let the designers and actual playtesters go from there.

I do push back against playtesters who suggest nerfs to my card, though.

Disclaimer: I am not a playtester. I considered playtesting, but the NDA/non-compete agreement would require me to sign over all MathWing IP. Alex lobbied my case to try and find a happy middle ground but legal would not budge. I am not willing to sign over any IP so I declined to join.

Should play testers be allowed to play in Regionals, Nationals and Worlds?

Absolutely, yes.

The best players with the best squads did the best at Worlds. At the top levels, your tournament can very suddenly end if you make one minor mistake. Paul consistently figures out the best ships to take, and then stays fresh throughout the entire tournament to minimize the risk of making that one mistake. He is currently on something like a 29-game winning streak at Worlds.

In my case I went 6-2 at Worlds and was #20. Not quite enough MoV to make the cut. I was slightly outflown in round 3 by Aaron Bonar (who also got a ton of lucky breaks during the game -- I would love a rematch sometime). That's loss #1. Then I made a dumb mistake in round 4 against another extremely good player who made the cut last year, I had a little bit of bad luck taking 5 damage on my IG in one shot as a result, and voila I had my 2nd loss. Poof, there goes my tournament chances.

Moral of the story: be physically prepared. I was running low on energy rounds 3 and 4 because I hadn't eaten yet, and "lunch" break was not until 5:00. Not eating is my Kryptonite, so I'll be more disciplined next year regardless of whatever the tournament schedule is.

But look at Paul as a comparison (Kris talked about this on the most recent NOVA podcast): he takes care of himself physically and mentally. Not only is there a lot of game preparation, but there is a lot of game-day preparedness as well. At that level you have to approach it like a disciplined athlete to do well.

I'm sure FFG locks down their testers under a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, as to protect the brand. The advantage (or non-advantage) of play testers in worlds would be easy to see. All we would have to do is see how many of the total players were testers and where they finished. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen as I'm sure as part of the NDA your not allowed to say wether your a tester or not.

The list of playtesters is printed on the back of the blister insert for each wave. It is all public knowledge once product is released. There are a lot of very good players in the list.

Executive summary of the NDA: as a playtester you are allowed to say that you are a playtester for upcoming FFG products, but you are not allowed to say what products you playtested until they are released for sale. Even after a product is released for sale, you cannot ever divulge anything about FFG's internal playtesting process.

Playtesters absolutely should be allowed to compete. Hell, I feel bad for Alex Davy, because he wants to play in Regionals, but isn't allowed to. Heck, he has to travel for Store Championships.

Actually, Alex won the 2015 FFG Store Championship with 6 A-wings!

If you do not allow playtesters to play in those events you will find yourself with no competent playtesters.

Not even one? Alex Davy would refuse to playtest or are you calling him incompetent? Source or proof?

Playtesters are not paid, it isn't a job. They are volunteers. If you forced players to choose between playtesting and actually playing the game in events, 99% would choose to not be a playtester.

That seems like an awful high percentage. Source or proof?

Your playtest group would lose a large amount of likely it's most diligent, invested, and competent playtesters.

Wait, you said they wouldn't have any. Which is it? Sorry to interrupt your completely hyperbolic rant, but sheesh, have some self restraint.

I get the sense that you are generally unaware of how playtest processes work and what impact playtesters actually have.

Well in fairness, based on your claims from above, I'm pretty sure you're generally unaware of how playtest processes work and what impact they have.

I personally don't see the issue with having playtesters in tournaments. I think easy access to things like Vassal completely eliminate the advantage gained by playtesters. I'd expect that you would actually find more Vassal players at the top tables than playtesters, but that is complete conjecture on my part.

By the same token, I don't have an issue with the OP asking the question. Now, back to sharpening your pitchforks and lighting your torches.

If you do not allow playtesters to play in those events you will find yourself with no competent playtesters. Playtesters are not paid, it isn't a job. They are volunteers. If you forced players to choose between playtesting and actually playing the game in events, 99% would choose to not be a playtester. Your playtest group would lose a large amount of likely it's most diligent, invested, and competent playtesters.

This, this, this. It's far better for the health of the game--at the competitive and casual levels--to have the best players involved in the process somehow. If you barred the most talented and most passionate players from being testers, I can only imagine the quality and balance of the products would suffer.