To call X-Wing itself Pay To Win isn't helpful: of course it is: you have to buy it to play it in the first place.

This is why I find the argument that X-Wing is pay-to-win to be ridiculous. It's like arguing Rebellion is a pay-to-win game because I have to buy the game in order to play and therefore win.

If anyone is playimg against me right now then you are playing against defenders with proxy titles.

In tournament play (even seasonal kits) I feel you should follow the rules as written and only use proper cards.

But the reason can be more important than the conclusion. What is the difference between casual play and tournaments that makes whether or not you opponent has the actual card important?

I guess it is that in a tournament you win prizes so the rules should be followed as written. In casual, no real consequences on whether you win or lose other than how it makes you feel.

Even the bad rules? To really test your conclusion, what if the game had a rule that all players must stand on one foot when declaring an attach with Dash Rendar? Should that rule be followed?

Rules change in this game. Sometimes they change because the game needs to evolve or because the game faces an unforeseen problem. Other time, they change because the provide no benefit while also limiting players (i.e. the old faction dial rule). If no one can state a compelling reason to require an original version of a card for each upgrade on a ship, then we have a restriction that does not provide a benefit.

So, why do you think that proxies create a problem in a tournament setting?

If there was a Dash rule about standing on one foot, then yes, it should be followed in a tournament, casually it would be up to the players. "Bad" rules are subjective. I think the ID rule is bad but I would recommend some one use it if it guarantees a spot in the cut. I think the 2 damage decks is a bad rule, but I would suggest someone use the old one if they are fielding generics w/o upgrades. Rules should be followed as written in tournaments unless the TO wants to change a rule before hand to change up the format (cross faction, 125 pt, etc).

I personally do not think that proxies create a problem at all as long as they are easy to read and your opponent can not misunderstand what you are fielding. However, it is not allowed as per rules, so should not be allowed. We might not have all the reasons that FFG is privy to to make the rules; we might not have the information required to make a decision on whether a rule should be followed or broken.

I feel a need to say a few things here.

1) Any player just getting into a game buying some random stuff for one faction and thinking they will do well at a Torniment have never played a competitive game that is not a one box buy. If you want at least a chance then research is required before any purchase heading for competitive play.

2) If someone is a fan boy of a particular ship why would they not want to improve it? I can kind of understand that the raider is expensive if you ONLY play TIE/ad. But other bits are nice as well. However I cannot understand the Imp vets hate? New pilots + fixes + new cannon + a sexy new red model!! and that is Before the bomber stuff!!!. I know I want 2 and that's just to run triple TIE defenders.

@Rapture. I feel you have an axe to grind on the raider. As blue five said, it's not really PTW as it is not a vastly increased chance of victory over EVERYBODY that does not buy a raider. Just those that only want to play certain lists. to go back to the +12 sword argument. It is more like buying the +6 sword ( the same as other end game players have and can earn in game in that case) while you are still sitting I the +4 armour you had 10 levels ago. Most other competitive players have that +6 from other things (jump masters, Imp Aces, Stress both etc..) Paying for the /X1 title or Imp Vets

only takes you to that level not beyond it.

Ah. But now the game introduces a shield that players can randomly find. There is a .000000000000000001% chance that it will be in the chest that each player can access once when playing through the game. The shield prevents all damage caused by the OHK sword. Now, your definition no longer applies.

Since when did X-Wing have random drops?

As for whether or not that'd be Pay To Win, that's a debate in the Free To Play industry: at what point is the barrier of time and energy to acquire the same level of strength as paying players so excessive such that the game is still considered to be Pay To Win? Some would argue that it is still Pay To Win because the OHK sword is in excess of what a non-paying player can reasonably achieve, others (probably the devs) would argue that it is not Pay To Win because you can match the power of the OHK sword without paying. It's a whole discussion unto itself and completely irrelevant to a discussion about X-Wing. For it to be relevant X-Wing would have to give you content for free for playing it.

Wow. X-Wing does not have random drops. Can you quote for me where someone said that it did? I presented you with a hypothetical. It was designed to prove to you that your conclusion is very poorly though out and that it does not survive being tested. It does not necessarily imply anything about X-Wing itself.

See, no it is becoming obvious that you are picking a conclusion and the arguing to support it rather than the other way around. No one has anything to gain here, so that approach is not appropriate. First, you claim that there is only one definition of pay-to-win (ignoring the times that you contradicted yourself by providing varying definitions, of course). Now, you are suggesting that whether something is pay-to-win is a more nebulous concept that is open to debate? You cannot do both. Either there is a strict definition, or there is not.

So, which is it?

Or, I suppose I could humor you. The X-Wing expansion is not pay to win. It provide no advantage that is not comparable to any other option for any other ship, which include X-Wings acquired through the core set and the Rebel Transport.

It provides an advantage over a player that buys only the Core Set. You can make a legal list with just the Core Set. Yes, it's either two TIE aces or a lone T-65, but it's legal.

If you buy the X-wing expansion you can run two X-wings. That gives you twice as many ships relative to the Core Set only player, giving the player who paid for the X-wing a huge advantage solely through paying. Two X-wings beats one.

If that sounds ridiculous that's because it is, but it's based on exactly the same reasoning as your Imperial Vets is Pay To Win. It provides an advantage over a player running pre-Vets Defenders: that a player bought an expansion and thus gained an advantage over a player that did not.

What? Come on. When did the number of ships come into play? You are now inserting different facts into the situation as part of your response. Do you not see what that makes a meaningful discussion impossible? You asked which expansion do not provide an advantage compared to others and I gave you an example. The X-Wing expansion does not because the class of the cards that it contains is arguably comparable to any other expansion that allows for a build of equal points.

The difference between the X-Wing expansion and the Imperial Veterans expansion is that an objectively worse TIE Defender exists when a player has a TIE Defender expansion and an objectively better TIE Defender exists when a player has the Imperial Veterans Expansion. This is because the Imperial Veterans expansion come with rules that, for no in-game cost (meaning neither points no opportunity), improve the effectively of the TIE Defender. The key components of while this is pay-to-win are that the new TIE Defender is objectively better (meaning that no reasonable argument to the contrary exists) and that the better version of the ship is obtain through a different or subsequent purchase. If you still do not see the distinction, then I do not know what to tell you.

Now it is your turn to actually answer questions.

If you're referring to doing the above with every single expansion released thus far I'm not going to do that because it'd be hugely time consuming for very little gain.

If you had any other questions I missed, please reiterate them.

You are killing me. Again, I asked you about three specific expansion - I DID NOT ASK YOU ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE. I do not know how to make that more clear for you.

I will not reiterate my questions. I literally posted the post number with one of the questions that you ignored. Go back and look. They all end with a "?". If you really, really, really can't find them for some insane reason, then I will go get them for you.

To call X-Wing itself Pay To Win isn't helpful: of course it is: you have to buy it to play it in the first place.

This is why I find the argument that X-Wing is pay-to-win to be ridiculous. It's like arguing Rebellion is a pay-to-win game because I have to buy the game in order to play and therefore win.

That is stupid. Have you read the thread? Or maybe I am being mean and you actually read the argument and honestly believe that people are suggesting that X-Wing has pay-to-win components because you cannot play it without making a purchase?

@Rapture. I feel you have an axe to grind on the raider. As blue five said, it's not really PTW as it is not a vastly increased chance of victory over EVERYBODY that does not buy a raider. Just those that only want to play certain lists. to go back to the +12 sword argument. It is more like buying the +6 sword ( the same as other end game players have and can earn in game in that case) while you are still sitting I the +4 armour you had 10 levels ago. Most other competitive players have that +6 from other things (jump masters, Imp Aces, Stress both etc..) Paying for the /X1 title or Imp Vets

only takes you to that level not beyond it.

The practice utilized in the Raider should bother you. I know players who purchased the TIE Advanced expansion and not the Raider. I do not know that any of them feel spurned by FFG, but they are stuck with the poor performing TIE Advanced while people who made a subsequent purchase have access to the fixed TIE Advanced.

The current discussion is about whether or not X-Wing is pay-to-win. I think that certain aspects of the game, notably the titles that are made available to fix ships with no in-game cost, are pay-to-win because they provide advantages in exchange for cash. Whether everyone can buy them and whether alternative options are available is a question of magnitude of impact and not the existence of pay-to-win with respect to those ships.

If there was a Dash rule about standing on one foot, then yes, it should be followed in a tournament, casually it would be up to the players. "Bad" rules are subjective. I think the ID rule is bad but I would recommend some one use it if it guarantees a spot in the cut. I think the 2 damage decks is a bad rule, but I would suggest someone use the old one if they are fielding generics w/o upgrades. Rules should be followed as written in tournaments unless the TO wants to change a rule before hand to change up the format (cross faction, 125 pt, etc).

I personally do not think that proxies create a problem at all as long as they are easy to read and your opponent can not misunderstand what you are fielding. However, it is not allowed as per rules, so should not be allowed. We might not have all the reasons that FFG is privy to to make the rules; we might not have the information required to make a decision on whether a rule should be followed or broken.

Fine, then a new rule. This rule, which was just added through an errata, states that no Canadians can play in tournaments above the store championship level.

Now, imagine yourself at a regional tournament. Your opponent seems nice enough, but, when he is placing his shield tokens, you notice a particularly well done maple leaf tattoo on his arm. When he asks you to flip a coin for initiative, you also detect a slight "eh" that he attempts to suppress at the end of his sentence. Do you call a judge and have this suspected Canadian removed? It is a rule after all - who are you to say whether it is a good or bad one?

You know the difference between a good and bad rule. While you are correct that it can be subjective, but a rational person has no issue determining that a rule that exists for seemingly no purpose and is a detriment in some way is a bad rule.

Wow. X-Wing does not have random drops. Can you quote for me where someone said that it did? I presented you with a hypothetical. It was designed to prove to you that your conclusion is very poorly though out and that it does not survive being tested. It does not necessarily imply anything about X-Wing itself.

See, no it is becoming obvious that you are picking a conclusion and the arguing to support it rather than the other way around. No one has anything to gain here, so that approach is not appropriate. First, you claim that there is only one definition of pay-to-win (ignoring the times that you contradicted yourself by providing varying definitions, of course). Now, you are suggesting that whether something is pay-to-win is a more nebulous concept that is open to debate? You cannot do both. Either there is a strict definition, or there is not.

So, which is it?

There is a far cry between situations existing that are arguably Pay To Win and Pay To Win being nebulous. You can argue over if something is ironic or not, but that does not mean that anything can be ironic. Yes, there is a grey area, but X-Wing is very far outside of it, something I'm attempting to show via reductio ad absurdum.

What? Come on. When did the number of ships come into play? You are now inserting different facts into the situation as part of your response. Do you not see what that makes a meaningful discussion impossible? You asked which expansion do not provide an advantage compared to others and I gave you an example. The X-Wing expansion does not because the class of the cards that it contains is arguably comparable to any other expansion that allows for a build of equal points.

That's not the definition you gave.

1. By your definition a purchase is Pay To Win if it provides an advantage against players based solely on purchase, no?

2. A player that owns only the core set can only run a single T-65 (or two TIE fighters).

3. A player that also buys the T-65 expansion can run two T-65s.

4. A list consisting of two maxed out T-65s has an advantage over a list consisting of only one.

5. (2, 3 & 4) Therefore, buying the T-65 expansion provides an advantage over the player that did not buy it solely from purchasing.

6. (1 & 5) Therefore, the T-65 expansion is Pay To Win.

It meets your definition. Can you reconcile your definition of Pay To Win and the T-65 Expansion not being Pay To Win?

The difference between the X-Wing expansion and the Imperial Veterans expansion is that an objectively worse TIE Defender exists when a player has a TIE Defender expansion and an objectively better TIE Defender exists when a player has the Imperial Veterans Expansion. This is because the Imperial Veterans expansion come with rules that, for no in-game cost (meaning neither points no opportunity), improve the effectively of the TIE Defender. The key components of while this is pay-to-win are that the new TIE Defender is objectively better (meaning that no reasonable argument to the contrary exists) and that the better version of the ship is obtain through a different or subsequent purchase. If you still do not see the distinction, then I do not know what to tell you.

They are better than the old defenders, but they are not better than the balance standard of the rest of the game.

If you can restrict the "non-paying" player to solely original TIE defenders then you can restrict the "non-paying" player in the T-65 example to solely the Core Set.

If you can't restrict the "non-paying" player in the example above to the Core Set only then you can't restrict the "non-paying" player in this example to the original TIE defender.

If you don't restrict the "non-paying" player to the original TIE defender then they can run anything so long as it isn't in the Imp Vets box and the gameplay advantage from buying Imperial Veterans evaporates.

Therefore, either the T-65 is Pay To Win or Imperial Veterans isn't Pay To Win.

This is the distinction between an advantage over every player and an advantage over any player.

If you really, really, really can't find them for some insane reason, then I will go get them for you.

Please do.

@Rapture. I feel you have an axe to grind on the raider. As blue five said, it's not really PTW as it is not a vastly increased chance of victory over EVERYBODY that does not buy a raider. Just those that only want to play certain lists. to go back to the +12 sword argument. It is more like buying the +6 sword ( the same as other end game players have and can earn in game in that case) while you are still sitting I the +4 armour you had 10 levels ago. Most other competitive players have that +6 from other things (jump masters, Imp Aces, Stress both etc..) Paying for the /X1 title or Imp Vets

only takes you to that level not beyond it.

The practice utilized in the Raider should bother you. I know players who purchased the TIE Advanced expansion and not the Raider. I do not know that any of them feel spurned by FFG, but they are stuck with the poor performing TIE Advanced while people who made a subsequent purchase have access to the fixed TIE Advanced.

The current discussion is about whether or not X-Wing is pay-to-win. I think that certain aspects of the game, notably the titles that are made available to fix ships with no in-game cost, are pay-to-win because they provide advantages in exchange for cash. Whether everyone can buy them and whether alternative options are available is a question of magnitude of impact and not the existence of pay-to-win with respect to those ships.

If there was a Dash rule about standing on one foot, then yes, it should be followed in a tournament, casually it would be up to the players. "Bad" rules are subjective. I think the ID rule is bad but I would recommend some one use it if it guarantees a spot in the cut. I think the 2 damage decks is a bad rule, but I would suggest someone use the old one if they are fielding generics w/o upgrades. Rules should be followed as written in tournaments unless the TO wants to change a rule before hand to change up the format (cross faction, 125 pt, etc).

I personally do not think that proxies create a problem at all as long as they are easy to read and your opponent can not misunderstand what you are fielding. However, it is not allowed as per rules, so should not be allowed. We might not have all the reasons that FFG is privy to to make the rules; we might not have the information required to make a decision on whether a rule should be followed or broken.

Fine, then a new rule. This rule, which was just added through an errata, states that no Canadians can play in tournaments above the store championship level.

Now, imagine yourself at a regional tournament. Your opponent seems nice enough, but, when he is placing his shield tokens, you notice a particularly well done maple leaf tattoo on his arm. When he asks you to flip a coin for initiative, you also detect a slight "eh" that he attempts to suppress at the end of his sentence. Do you call a judge and have this suspected Canadian removed? It is a rule after all - who are you to say whether it is a good or bad one?

You know the difference between a good and bad rule. While you are correct that it can be subjective, but a rational person has no issue determining that a rule that exists for seemingly no purpose and is a detriment in some way is a bad rule.

This is why I have had My Maple Leaf tattoo Removed, and have been working on a more southern drawl type accent, eh... well I guess I need more practice

Pay To Win is not "improving your chances by paying more money". It is paying to win. The autothrustersless interceptors are completely and utterly irrelevant here. The Autothruster Interceptors are Pay To Win if they have a significant advantage over the rest of the game such that if I run them I will win most of the time. Comparing them to pre-autothrusters interceptors is like comparing them to Scyks, of course it's going to be better if you compare it to a subpar list.

Call it what you want. You can improve your chances of winning in this game, by paying more money.

That's again not what Pay To Win means.

It doesn't matter whether you call it pay to win or not.

The fact remains that spending more money on certain ships, most notably the TIE Advanced and TIE Interceptor, gives you a better chance to win. Players with a Raider and Starvipers have an advantage over players without them, an advantage which makes it easier for them to win, and which they got by paying more money.

We don't have to agree that this makes it pay to win, we just have to agree that by paying more, you can win more than if you didn't pay more.

The fact remains that spending more money on certain ships, most notably the TIE Advanced and TIE Interceptor, gives you a better chance to win. Players with a Raider and Starvipers have an advantage over players without them, an advantage which makes it easier for them to win, and which they got by paying more money.

So a player with TIE/x1 will have an easy time beating my Jumpmasters?

We don't have to agree that this makes it pay to win, we just have to agree that by paying more, you can win more than if you didn't pay more.

We're not discussing that. We're discussing if elements of X-Wing are Pay To Win or not. In order to answer that question, Pay To Win must be defined. We can agree that X-Wing's distribution model turned out pretty ghastly in practice, but that does not make it Pay To Win.

As for that claim itself, this is only true up to the price of the cheapest competitive list.

@Rapture. I feel you have an axe to grind on the raider. As blue five said, it's not really PTW as it is not a vastly increased chance of victory over EVERYBODY that does not buy a raider. Just those that only want to play certain lists. to go back to the +12 sword argument. It is more like buying the +6 sword ( the same as other end game players have and can earn in game in that case) while you are still sitting I the +4 armour you had 10 levels ago. Most other competitive players have that +6 from other things (jump masters, Imp Aces, Stress both etc..) Paying for the /X1 title or Imp Vetsonly takes you to that level not beyond it.

The practice utilized in the Raider should bother you. I know players who purchased the TIE Advanced expansion and not the Raider. I do not know that any of them feel spurned by FFG, but they are stuck with the poor performing TIE Advanced while people who made a subsequent purchase have access to the fixed TIE Advanced. The current discussion is about whether or not X-Wing is pay-to-win. I think that certain aspects of the game, notably the titles that are made available to fix ships with no in-game cost, are pay-to-win because they provide advantages in exchange for cash. Whether everyone can buy them and whether alternative options are available is a question of magnitude of impact and not the existence of pay-to-win with respect to those.

first of all the matter at hand, the op, is on the morality of proxying.

Second how is the Raider TIE/ad Better than anything else in the game? I have no argument that it is better than a vastly underperforming ship, although in our casual environment I do OK with me non titled defender, but that it is PTW due to the fact most other ships are balanced against it.

if we use your argument then an alabaster space whale (Imp Shuttle if you do not know the vernacular) is PTW as a HLC shuttle is better than a tie advanced, as is the advanced prototype streight out of the box. So why is the X1 title PTW when those are not? Because it is sold in a format that does not interest you?

I say again in a different manner. The previous fix Advanced is the equivalent of a below max level MMO armour set where as the competition list are current teir gear

why would you expect to be able to compete at that level without improving your gear. In an MMO that would be time, Luck or paying (for some) in a miniature game it is getting fixes be they through errata, proxy or purchase. It only becomes purchase if your in a Torniment or your opponent objects to proxies.

look on the bright side it is not here is a new codex give us £300 minimum to be competitive.

Wow. X-Wing does not have random drops. Can you quote for me where someone said that it did? I presented you with a hypothetical. It was designed to prove to you that your conclusion is very poorly though out and that it does not survive being tested. It does not necessarily imply anything about X-Wing itself.

See, no it is becoming obvious that you are picking a conclusion and the arguing to support it rather than the other way around. No one has anything to gain here, so that approach is not appropriate. First, you claim that there is only one definition of pay-to-win (ignoring the times that you contradicted yourself by providing varying definitions, of course). Now, you are suggesting that whether something is pay-to-win is a more nebulous concept that is open to debate? You cannot do both. Either there is a strict definition, or there is not.

So, which is it?

There is a far cry between situations existing that are arguably Pay To Win and Pay To Win being nebulous. You can argue over if something is ironic or not, but that does not mean that anything can be ironic. Yes, there is a grey area, but X-Wing is very far outside of it, something I'm attempting to show via reductio ad absurdum.

Be careful. You skipped the questions again.

1) Who said that X-Wing has random drops? At first, I assumed that you meant that rhetorically, but the fact that it was in response to an illustrative hypothetical means that such a rhetorical question does not makes sense in that context, and a clever guy like you wouldn't make such a stupid mistake.

2) Is there a strict definition for pay-to-win, or can examples that only come close to meeting the various definitions that you have provided be stamped with the label?

Also, spare me the Latin. Either you edited away the absurd result that you proved, or you have no idea what that phrase applies to.

What? Come on. When did the number of ships come into play? You are now inserting different facts into the situation as part of your response. Do you not see what that makes a meaningful discussion impossible? You asked which expansion do not provide an advantage compared to others and I gave you an example. The X-Wing expansion does not because the class of the cards that it contains is arguably comparable to any other expansion that allows for a build of equal points.

That's not the definition you gave.

1. By your definition a purchase is Pay To Win if it provides an advantage against players based solely on purchase, no?

2. A player that owns only the core set can only run a single T-65 (or two TIE fighters).

3. A player that also buys the T-65 expansion can run two T-65s.

4. A list consisting of two maxed out T-65s has an advantage over a list consisting of only one.

5. (2, 3 & 4) Therefore, buying the T-65 expansion provides an advantage over the player that did not buy it solely from purchasing.

6. (1 & 5) Therefore, the T-65 expansion is Pay To Win.

It meets your definition. Can you reconcile your definition of Pay To Win and the T-65 Expansion not being Pay To Win?

The difference between the X-Wing expansion and the Imperial Veterans expansion is that an objectively worse TIE Defender exists when a player has a TIE Defender expansion and an objectively better TIE Defender exists when a player has the Imperial Veterans Expansion. This is because the Imperial Veterans expansion come with rules that, for no in-game cost (meaning neither points no opportunity), improve the effectively of the TIE Defender. The key components of while this is pay-to-win are that the new TIE Defender is objectively better (meaning that no reasonable argument to the contrary exists) and that the better version of the ship is obtain through a different or subsequent purchase. If you still do not see the distinction, then I do not know what to tell you.

They are better than the old defenders, but they are not better than the balance standard of the rest of the game.

If you can restrict the "non-paying" player to solely original TIE defenders then you can restrict the "non-paying" player in the T-65 example to solely the Core Set.

If you can't restrict the "non-paying" player in the example above to the Core Set only then you can't restrict the "non-paying" player in this example to the original TIE defender.

If you don't restrict the "non-paying" player to the original TIE defender then they can run anything so long as it isn't in the Imp Vets box and the gameplay advantage from buying Imperial Veterans evaporates.

Therefore, either the T-65 is Pay To Win or Imperial Veterans isn't Pay To Win.

This is the distinction between an advantage over every player and an advantage over any player.

Well. I don't really know what to say. Did you read that before you hit the post button?

Do you understand the concept of isolating a variable? When two adults, even children sometimes, are discussing the impact of one specific variable, it is generally assumed that they try to isolate that variable in order to allow the discussion to have any meaning at all. The variable, if you have not figured it out from the past 10 pages of discussion, is the in-play advantage provided by a specific expansion. If we start doing things like suggesting that the X-Wing expansion is not balanced because someone can play 35 TIE Fighters against that single X-Wing, then we really are not having a meaningful discussion.

If you really, really, really can't find them for some insane reason, then I will go get them for you.

Please do.

121, 145, and 179. Although avoiding question that weaken your argument may feel very effective, it is also very transparent.

if we use your argument then an alabaster space whale is PTW as a HLC shuttle is better than a tie advanced, as is the advanced prototype streight out of the box. So why is the X1 title PTW when those are not? Because it is sold in a format that does not interest you?

I do not remember stating that it wasn't.

The distinction between you example and mine (the no-cost titles) is that the titles are objectively better. They improve the ship with no in-game cost. Whether a HLC on a shuttle is better than a title-less TIE Advanced, with the points being spent elsewhere, is open for debate. The ships do different things and cost different points to utilize - so we cannot objectively say which is better. It very well might be that a certain combination of ships and/or upgrades of the game that I have not mentioned is pay-to-win, but if the question is only whether or not X-Wing has a pay-to-win aspect, then I do not see any point in discussing anything other than the best example of a pay-to-win aspect.

I say again in a different manner. The previous fix Advanced is the equivalent of a below max level MMO armour set where as the competition list are current teir gear

why would you expect to be able to compete at that level without improving your gear. In an MMO that would be time, Luck or paying (for some) in a miniature game it is getting fixes be they through errata, proxy or purchase. It only becomes purchase if your in a Torniment or your opponent objects to proxies.

look on the bright side it is not here is a new codex give us £300 minimum to be competitive.

I do not know what that means. But, when I purchase a product to utilize to compete against others in a competitive setting, I consider the competition pay-to-win if money spent can have an influence on the outcome.

Pay To Win must be defined.

No it doesn't.

We can all just agree that it sucks having to buy a Raider to make the TIE Adv work, or the Starviper to make the TIE Interceptor work, or T70s to make your T65s work.

What we call this phenomenon, where paying more gives us a better chance at winning, is actually irrelevant.

Being anti-proxy is not about FFG. It is about you.

It's pretty much "I spent circa £70 on six TIE defenders I don't want because I felt pressured to have six physical cards, now I'm going to pressure you to do the same so I don't feel like an idiot." It's the human need to pressure others to conform to them so they feel happier about their own choices.

Preach!

So when someone sneaks into a movie theatre and starts eating from your tub of popcorn, I hope we all remember to check our privilege before we say anything ignorant! No one should have a problem with someone proxying a movie ticket or proxying snacks by borrowing someone else's.

Pay To Win must be defined.

No it doesn't.

We can all just agree that it sucks having to buy a Raider to make the TIE Adv work, or the Starviper to make the TIE Interceptor work, or T70s to make your T65s work.

What we call this phenomenon, where paying more gives us a better chance at winning, is actually irrelevant.

I like the Raider! I won't agree to agree. None of those ships that need other upgrades are mandatory for a list.

Are people going to complain they need to buy a Slave-1 to make the TIE Phantom work?

Veteran Instincts is Pay-2-Win!

No it doesn't.

We can all just agree that it sucks having to buy a Raider to make the TIE Adv work, or the Starviper to make the TIE Interceptor work, or T70s to make your T65s work.

What we call this phenomenon, where paying more gives us a better chance at winning, is actually irrelevant.

Can I call it murder then? No, I can't, because that's not what murder means.

I agree it's a bad thing. I do not agree it is Pay To Win.

Pay To Win does not mean "business practice I do not like".

The term you're after is Anti-Consumer.

121, 145, and 179. Although avoiding question that weaken your argument may feel very effective, it is also very transparent.

Those are numbers, not questions. If you want me to answer questions, ask them directly. I'm not going to go digging back through the thread playing Guess What The Question Is.

Furthermore, attempts at character assassination don't reflect well on your conviction of your own position.

1) Who said that X-Wing has random drops? At first, I assumed that you meant that rhetorically, but the fact that it was in response to an illustrative hypothetical means that such a rhetorical question does not makes sense in that context, and a clever guy like you wouldn't make such a stupid mistake.

It was fairly clearly rhetorical. You gave an example about random drops in an X-Wing discussion, something which has no relevance to the format.

2) Is there a strict definition for pay-to-win, or can examples that only come close to meeting the various definitions that you have provided be stamped with the label?

I answered this. Pay To Win is not so tightly defined such that everything can be stated to either be Pay To Win or not. There is a grey area. However, X-Wing is not in it.

Also, spare me the Latin. Either you edited away the absurd result that you proved, or you have no idea what that phrase applies to.

The T-65 being Pay to Win.

Well. I don't really know what to say. Did you read that before you hit the post button?

Do you understand the concept of isolating a variable? When two adults, even children sometimes, are discussing the impact of one specific variable, it is generally assumed that they try to isolate that variable in order to allow the discussion to have any meaning at all. The variable, if you have not figured it out from the past 10 pages of discussion, is the in-play advantage provided by a specific expansion. If we start doing things like suggesting that the X-Wing expansion is not balanced because someone can play 35 TIE Fighters against that single X-Wing, then we really are not having a meaningful discussion.

I'm using the logic you're using to prove Imperial Veterans is Pay To Win to prove the T-65 is also Pay To Win. If this logic is sound (and I invite you to show where it is not further down) then either ImpVets is not Pay to Win or the T-65 is. I can apply the same approach to every expansion in the game. And if every expansion is Pay To Win then Pay To Win no longer has meaning: you're simply stating you need to buy expansions to make a viable list, which we all know already.

Your definition of Pay To Win is anything which provides an advantage through purchasing alone. In order to make Imperial Veterans Pay To Win, you are limiting the player they are paying to win against to exclusively the pre-fix TIE defenders. You're claiming that because Imperial Veterans beats pre-fix TIE defenders it is Pay To Win.

I have asserted that in order to be Pay To Win, an expansion must provide an advantage over every player that does not buy it: the expansion must be unbalanced such that if you pay for it, you probably win.

You are asserting that in order to be Pay To Win an expansion merely must give an advantage over any player that does not buy it, citing that Imperial Veterans is an objective improvement over original TIE defenders. Because it provides an advantage through purchase over those original TIE defenders, it is Pay To Win.

In order to illustrate this, I asked you for any expansion that wasn't Pay To Win and you gave the T-65.

I then applied the same approach you took with Imperial Veterans: I found an example of a player that is at a disadvantage relative to a player that bought the T-65 expansion. A player with only the Core can field a maximum of 39 points, giving them a 61 point initiative bid. A player who also buys the T-65 can then field a second X-wing, giving them a huge advantage over the player that does not.

What I am attempting to demonstrate is that you can't arbitrarily restrict the "non-paying" player in your analogy to Pay To Win to a set of expansions of your choosing, else every expansion becomes Pay To Win save the weakest possible, which is a lone Scyk. And if every expansion is Pay To Win then it ceases to be a meaningful term: you're only stating that to win the game you have to buy it.

To deem an expansion or set of expansions as Pay To Win, you must compare them to the entire field minus themselves. The original TIE defender is at a disadvantage versus the whole competitive field, not just Imperial Veterans.

For the T-65 expansion to not be, by your definition, Pay To Win, one of the statements from the previous post must be false.

1. By your definition a purchase is Pay To Win if it provides an advantage against players based solely on purchase, no?

2. A player that owns only the core set can only run a single T-65 (or two TIE fighters).

3. A player that also buys the T-65 expansion can run two T-65s.

4. A list consisting of two maxed out T-65s has an advantage over a list consisting of only one.

5. (2, 3 & 4) Therefore, buying the T-65 expansion provides an advantage over the player that did not buy it solely from purchasing.

6. (1 & 5) Therefore, the T-65 expansion is Pay To Win.

Which of these statements are false?

@Rapture. I feel you have an axe to grind on the raider. As blue five said, it's not really PTW as it is not a vastly increased chance of victory over EVERYBODY that does not buy a raider. Just those that only want to play certain lists. to go back to the +12 sword argument. It is more like buying the +6 sword ( the same as other end game players have and can earn in game in that case) while you are still sitting I the +4 armour you had 10 levels ago. Most other competitive players have that +6 from other things (jump masters, Imp Aces, Stress both etc..) Paying for the /X1 title or Imp Vets

only takes you to that level not beyond it.

The practice utilized in the Raider should bother you. I know players who purchased the TIE Advanced expansion and not the Raider. I do not know that any of them feel spurned by FFG, but they are stuck with the poor performing TIE Advanced while people who made a subsequent purchase have access to the fixed TIE Advanced.

The current discussion is about whether or not X-Wing is pay-to-win. I think that certain aspects of the game, notably the titles that are made available to fix ships with no in-game cost, are pay-to-win because they provide advantages in exchange for cash. Whether everyone can buy them and whether alternative options are available is a question of magnitude of impact and not the existence of pay-to-win with respect to those ships.

If there was a Dash rule about standing on one foot, then yes, it should be followed in a tournament, casually it would be up to the players. "Bad" rules are subjective. I think the ID rule is bad but I would recommend some one use it if it guarantees a spot in the cut. I think the 2 damage decks is a bad rule, but I would suggest someone use the old one if they are fielding generics w/o upgrades. Rules should be followed as written in tournaments unless the TO wants to change a rule before hand to change up the format (cross faction, 125 pt, etc).

I personally do not think that proxies create a problem at all as long as they are easy to read and your opponent can not misunderstand what you are fielding. However, it is not allowed as per rules, so should not be allowed. We might not have all the reasons that FFG is privy to to make the rules; we might not have the information required to make a decision on whether a rule should be followed or broken.

Fine, then a new rule. This rule, which was just added through an errata, states that no Canadians can play in tournaments above the store championship level.

Now, imagine yourself at a regional tournament. Your opponent seems nice enough, but, when he is placing his shield tokens, you notice a particularly well done maple leaf tattoo on his arm. When he asks you to flip a coin for initiative, you also detect a slight "eh" that he attempts to suppress at the end of his sentence. Do you call a judge and have this suspected Canadian removed? It is a rule after all - who are you to say whether it is a good or bad one?

You know the difference between a good and bad rule. While you are correct that it can be subjective, but a rational person has no issue determining that a rule that exists for seemingly no purpose and is a detriment in some way is a bad rule.

Just as i would not call a TO on proxied cards, I would not call a TO on someone I suspected as Canadian. I do not see the advantage they gain over me in either case. However, rules are set and in competitive environments, players should adhere to all rules. There could be reasons why Canadians are excluded that we don't know about (they have access to alternative tournaments, they have access to French cards that provide an advantage, who knows, maybe FFG has special plans for Canadians). Since Canada was shut out of the System Open Series, i kinda feel like this actually took place. I'm Canadian.

...

Rules change in this game. Sometimes they change because the game needs to evolve or because the game faces an unforeseen problem. Other time, they change because the provide no benefit while also limiting players (i.e. the old faction dial rule). If no one can state a compelling reason to require an original version of a card for each upgrade on a ship, then we have a restriction that does not provide a benefit.

So, why do you think that proxies create a problem in a tournament setting?

GREAT ARGUMENT. Now there really is no compelling reason to have a ship's model on the board to play therefore it is no longer required.

As I've pointed out before removing that stupid requirement sure does make the game much easier to pack and also makes it easier to play as there is far less stuff to worry about knocking into and possibly even over. Any "compelling" reason you have that could convince me of how essential the ship models are to the game should be more than enough reason to require you to have the cards.

As I've pointed out before removing that stupid requirement sure does make the game much easier to pack and also makes it easier to play as there is far less stuff to worry about knocking into and possibly even over. Any "compelling" reason you have that could convince me of how essential the ship models are to the game should be more than enough reason to require you to have the cards.

You don't strictly need the models to play the game. It's just that people aren't nearly as interested in playing a game of moving black squares.

Can I call it murder then?

YES!

You can call it a freaking banana split if you want, no one cares!

You're operating off a definition of pay-to-win that not everyone else is sharing.

So what? We don't need to be on the same page about this.

We're saying that pay-to-win is bad, because it's unfair and anti-consumer.

You agree that this business practice unfair and anti-consumer, but want to continue this ****-fight about the definition of pay-to-win... why exactly?

We know what everyone else means, there's no confusion about what we're talking about, yet we've all spent like 6 pages arguing about nothing.

You know what? Take my advice or don't. I don't have enough time in my life to waste it arguing about nothing.

pay-to-play ≠ pay-to-win

Unless the core set is also pay-to-win.

It's feeling like it's starting to get ugly in here. Let's keep it civil please. I don't want this discussion locked. Thanks.

I think this thread is quite interesting and I applaud Fuzzywookie on his call to keep the clamor light. This really is the simple and universal human longing for fairness:

On the one hand, those who get into the game and invest their time (remember, time is money and the only real commodity we have) to purchase and enjoy new expansion packs for cool and interesting ships, and the additional upgrades/abilities to add punch to their existing fleet, feel it it is only "fair" that they should gain such advantages equal to their investment. They would ask, "haven't I earned this advantage through the sacrifice of me time (money)?" On the other hand, those who cannot or choose not to invest in new ships to gain access to subsequent ships and upgrade cards, feel that additional time (cash) investment in the game isn't worth the added benefit if they can simply photo-copy or make place-holders for the ships and or abilities they want to field. They would possibly say, "I'm not giving FFG more of my $$ for this simple cardboard card(s), it's just not worth the time" (money).

It's akin to the argument over paying a musical artist for their work or simply copying it from another source without investment.

I think the basic consensus on this thread that games of consequence, like tournaments, should require FFG ships and printed cards. As far as friendly games, it seems it me quite illogical to allow any external rules to be inserted into our homes (ie. the Orwellian big brother thing) when we play friendly games of x-wing. I would think in those instances, the players should decide. As far as the legal/moral/ethical obligation of insuring "fairness" goes, I personally believe the players should use what original ships and cards they currently have, allbeit sharing liberally between themselves, working within the abilities that their cumulative investment affords them. Believe me, it's not because I'm so gun-ho to insure that FFG's profits stay high as they deal out the plastic-crack, but because it causes us to rely more on heavily on creativity, compromise, flying ability, and the seemingly inverted game-fate that those curious dice gods give us.

That is stupid. Have you read the thread? Or maybe I am being mean and you actually read the argument and honestly believe that people are suggesting that X-Wing has pay-to-win components because you cannot play it without making a purchase?

It's precisely the argument you're making. Although I recognize in your pedantry you were careful to say "without making a purchase" instead of hitting the nail on the head but whatever.

In order for some people to "pay-to-win" some other group needs to not pay and not be able to win. Since every expansion costs money and each person chooses what they buy X wing can not be "pay-to-win".

Many forum goers seem to believe that Pay to Win also requires the game to be Free to Play.

This is not the case.

Imagine a situation involving a multiplayer computer game. The Base game cost $40. This is all that is needed for someone to play the game. However there is also the $80 premium version, that along with a bunch of bonus skins has a 5% permanent damage boost.

There is a phenomena here. An effect by which by being richer in real life a player is also better in the game. What shall we call this phenomena?

Imagine a situation involving a multiplayer computer game. The Base game cost $40. This is all that is needed for someone to play the game. However there is also the $80 premium version, that along with a bunch of bonus skins has a 5% permanent damage boost.

What's the "base game" in X-Wing?

Something is Pay To Win if it provides an advantage over a "base game" player for just money. We're in agreement on that, yes?

What then is our base game player? This is the point on which Rapture and I fundamentally disagreed.