On 7/10/2017 at 5:35 PM, Wiredin said:

@Marinealver I have noticed some of my upgrade kits are a bit loose as well. The one I use for my A-Wing specifically has been really bad. I plotted a 3 hard and when I revealed it was a 4 straight. I called the 3 straight as I was revealing and hand the template in hand...but saw a straight 4. Without even questioning it I swapped to the straight 4 because the 3 was the perfect maneuver and it may have come across negatively, especially against the newer player I was flying against. I bumped. I got shot at, I'm an A-Wing, I survived, went on to win. no problem.

Sometimes the dial will also end up inbetween two selections too... I always call the maneuver before I reveal and show my opponent the dial, if it is inbetween I let them decide what to plot, but I haven't run into an issue plotting the maneuver I originally intended.

I switched to the "new" set of plastic dials specifically because of this. My Khiraxzs dials were way too lose and it lead to a situation much like yours in a kit tournament. Well worth the investment, haven't had an issue since.

27 minutes ago, Hydralisk101 said:

I switched to the "new" set of plastic dials specifically because of this. My Khiraxzs dials were way too lose and it lead to a situation much like yours in a kit tournament. Well worth the investment, haven't had an issue since.

I just put a couple of small stickers to thicken the dial up a bit to make it stiffer. seems to ahve worked.

17 hours ago, LordBlades said:

22 hours ago, StevenO said:

Allowing the ship to run away in no way prevented the game from continue. It may have made the situation much more difficult but it certainly didn't end it. It is only the "rage quit" that prevented the game from continuing.

After that concession I really would have suggested a "let's just see what could have happened" game where nothing is on the line anymore and the game was just for fun and to kill the time. The result would have no standing in the tournament but could satisfy an X-Wing desire. "But if you do that why not just allow the take back in the first place and then play the game?" You don't do that because then there are no consequence for the mistake that was made. Now that games are binary (win/lose) if you lose you lose.

Why would the opponent agree to that though? Conceding sends a pretty clear 'I don't want to play this guy' message.

Conceding sends a clear message "that I don't feel I can win anymore." If that's the same as "I don't want to play this guy," then that is ON HIM for being such a poor sportsman that he can't accept his mistakes and grow from them.

Maybe it's never happened to you but I know there are plenty of games, not just of X-Wing, where you make a fatal mistake that costs you the game. SUCK IT UP! Now if someone then offers you a "what could have happened" scenario I don't see the problem with that as it could show if it was all that mistake or if it was still going to be a loss anyway.

Joe, you certainly didn't do anything wrong, and calling the judge to rule on it is fair especially as you haven't played many tournaments.

That said, I probably would have let the fella redo the first move. Later, hell no. First move though, yeah. But that's just me.

Perhaps you don't feel bad because you did something wrong, but because you missed the opportunity to do something great.

RoV

6 hours ago, StevenO said:

Conceding sends a clear message "that I don't feel I can win anymore." If that's the same as "I don't want to play this guy," then that is ON HIM for being such a poor sportsman that he can't accept his mistakes and grow from them.

Maybe it's never happened to you but I know there are plenty of games, not just of X-Wing, where you make a fatal mistake that costs you the game. SUCK IT UP! Now if someone then offers you a "what could have happened" scenario I don't see the problem with that as it could show if it was all that mistake or if it was still going to be a loss anyway.

Poor sportsmanship would be not accepting the mistake and/or trying to push/guilty the opponent into allowing a take back.

Thinking 'this guy isn't really a nice person for doing this' WHILE accepting he's well within his rights to do it has nothing to do with sportsmanship. It's merely a personal opinion.

Now, I fully understand why somebody would hold their opponent to their mistakes. I largely do the same in tournaments. However, I also understand it's not the 'nice' thing to do and it's unavoidably going to upset the opponent to some degree.

24 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

Poor sportsmanship would be not accepting the mistake and/or trying to push/guilty the opponent into allowing a take back.

Thinking 'this guy isn't really a nice person for doing this' WHILE accepting he's well within his rights to do it has nothing to do with sportsmanship. It's merely a personal opinion.

Now, I fully understand why somebody would hold their opponent to their mistakes. I largely do the same in tournaments. However, I also understand it's not the 'nice' thing to do and it's unavoidably going to upset the opponent to some degree.

What I'm calling poor sportsmanship is saying "I don't want to play with this guy," just because he chose to follow the rules of the game. Is it unsporting in the sense that it should be punished? Probably not but when you say it is a "personal opinion" for someone to think bad things about a person for following the rules I disagree with that.

1 hour ago, StevenO said:

What I'm calling poor sportsmanship is saying "I don't want to play with this guy," just because he chose to follow the rules of the game. Is it unsporting in the sense that it should be punished? Probably not but when you say it is a "personal opinion" for someone to think bad things about a person for following the rules I disagree with that.

You're not saying it. You're conceding (which is allowed by the rules), then politely declining another game. You don't owe the other guy any explanation for either decision.

If we go into what you think (although IMO sportsmanship should be about what you do) I wouldn't rate 'this guy is not a nice person for flying my ship off the board' as poorer sportsmanship than 'I want to win more than I want to play, so I'll fly your ship off the board, because the rules let me'.

16 hours ago, ThalanirIII said:

What?

You have no right to tell people what they should/should not fly. You shouldn't judge someone based on what they're flying, that's more of a **** move. Trying to squeeze it into your spinach example, if someone organises a buffet where each person brings a dish, you're not superior to anyone who brings spinach, even if you have to eat some. It's also polite not to complain. Now, if this buffet had rules that "everyone has to be approved by Sarcon's tastes" then your example would be valid.

But your analogy still fails to make any sense.

I am not telling anyone what they should fly. Nor did I say I was superior to anyone else. Everyone has things they prefer or just simply enjoy less in this game. And because I vocalize my preference it is a **** move? Stop being so sensitive, I am just being honest. I say the thing many others think.

1 hour ago, Sarcon said:

I am not telling anyone what they should fly. Nor did I say I was superior to anyone else. Everyone has things they prefer or just simply enjoy less in this game. And because I vocalize my preference it is a **** move? Stop being so sensitive, I am just being honest. I say the thing many others think.

Just because many people think something doesn't make it right. You said you'd change your treatment of a situation based on the list your opponent is flying & that's a **** move, unless the tournament had specific rules on that subject.

47 minutes ago, ThalanirIII said:

Just because many people think something doesn't make it right. You said you'd change your treatment of a situation based on the list your opponent is flying & that's a **** move, unless the tournament had specific rules on that subject.

I think another way of looking at it: isn't it a **** move to take the same list (with close to zero variation in the list itself) that about 10-20% of the players attending the tournament are flying? Aren't you taking away diversity and fun from other players then?

I am not saying that my considerations are fair towards the player. Most of it is just plain frustration in the current gamestate, nothing personal.

I have learnt a few times now much to my detriment, in a tournament setting, if they make a mistake it is on them. In a fun or normal game I would totally alow a redo.

32 minutes ago, Sarcon said:

I think another way of looking at it: isn't it a **** move to take the same list (with close to zero variation in the list itself) that about 10-20% of the players attending the tournament are flying? Aren't you taking away diversity and fun from other players then?

I am not saying that my considerations are fair towards the player. Most of it is just plain frustration in the current gamestate, nothing personal.

How do you know what anyone else will take? You can only choose for yourself - and if you have a small collection but want to be competitive, you may not have much choice. I don't think disappointment with the state of the meta should be taken out on players.

1 hour ago, Sarcon said:

I think another way of looking at it: isn't it a **** move to take the same list (with close to zero variation in the list itself) that about 10-20% of the players attending the tournament are flying? Aren't you taking away diversity and fun from other players then?

I am not saying that my considerations are fair towards the player. Most of it is just plain frustration in the current gamestate, nothing personal.

But what if a player legitimately enjoys using that list? He tries to have fun in the game he loves with the list he loves, but gets crap from all sides because other people use that list too?

6 hours ago, LordBlades said:

I'll fly your ship off the board, because the rules let me'.

I think you have it incorrect. The OP didn't fly his opponent's ship off the board, his opponent flew his own ship off the board with a poorly chosen maneuver. He could have made a deployment that is 100% safe from flying off board by positioning Assaj perpendicular instead of parallel to the board edge. He has nobody to blame but himself.

3 hours ago, Fauxfox said:

I have learnt a few times now much to my detriment, in a tournament setting, if they make a mistake it is on them. In a fun or normal game I would totally alow a redo.

I think this is the crux of the divide: some people think that "tournament settings" and "fun or normal game" are separated by some vast vague chasm. Other people don't.

3 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I think this is the crux of the divide: some people think that "tournament settings" and "fun or normal game" are separated by some vast vague chasm. Other people don't.

In many ways they ARE separated by a "vast chasm" with the biggest being does the win/lose result of the game matter?

Ok, maybe your "personal" record against someone matters to you but it isn't like that would affect anyone else. I believe I suggested in my first post on this topic but after the concession "fixed" the official game result (which matters) it would have been easy enough to shift to allow the change and switch to a "fun" game where the final result really didn't matter.

You can practice all you want but in many contests the only thing that matters is how you perform on game day. I don't care if you can run a sub 9-second 100m in practice because the only time it is going to count is at some event and if you can't do it then it's like you never could.

Here's a question for all of he casual miltants out there: why didn't OP's opponent just "fly casual" and laugh off his stupid mistake and play the rest of the match? Seems he was the one most guilty of incasual flight.

4 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Here's a question for all of he casual miltants out there: why didn't OP's opponent just "fly casual" and laugh off his stupid mistake and play the rest of the match? Seems he was the one most guilty of incasual flight.

Because it's not fun playing a game handicapped by 40 points?

Keep making those transparently self-serving arguments, though. I wish just one of you would simply come right out and say, "I'd hold him to the maneuver because winning the game is what is most important to me." If nothing else, it would be refreshingly honest ... and truth is in short supply these days.

But the opponent quit for the same reason you are attempting to paint everyone who didn't think OP was being a D. He wanted to win. But his chance was diminished through his own idiotic blunder he flew most incasually and rage quit instead of playing for fun. Maybe he could have set a personal goal in that match to not lose 100-0, try to take out Wedge, or simply moving plastic ships rolling dice and going pew pew, any other in-game pursuits that could have given him some pleasure other than from winning.

Why don't you just admit you are a self appointed self-righteous casual militant moral arbiter of X-Wing?

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Because it's not fun playing a game handicapped by 40 points?

Keep making those transparently self-serving arguments, though. I wish just one of you would simply come right out and say, "I'd hold him to the maneuver because winning the game is what is most important to me." If nothing else, it would be refreshingly honest ... and truth is in short supply these days.

Why the venom? You are painting the people you are arguing against like "win at all costs" type of people, which can't be true of all of them.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

which can't be true of all of them

I'd reckon none of us who disagree with Mr. Wilder are WAC players.

2 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Why don't you just admit you are a self appointed self-righteous casual militant moral arbiter of X-Wing?

I am certainly a self-appointed advocate for flying and behaving more casually in X-Wing. If you want to call me self-righteous, feel free: I certainly try to behave righteously, and I try to convince others to do so, as well. (I don't always succeed -- at either -- and I admit that, too.) Given that I hold no actual authority to make people behave ethically or morally, I'm not an actual "arbiter." Similarly, given that all I actually do, beyond my own behavior, is argue for treating opponents decently in X-Wing, "militant" doesn't work, either. But those are subtle distinctions, and -- believe me! -- nobody expects you to get them.

So now, can you admit that all you really care about is winning that game of X-Wing? Or will you keep deflecting and making self-serving arguments?

7 hours ago, Sarcon said:

I think another way of looking at it: isn't it a **** move to take the same list (with close to zero variation in the list itself) that about 10-20% of the players attending the tournament are flying? Aren't you taking away diversity and fun from other players then?

I am not saying that my considerations are fair towards the player. Most of it is just plain frustration in the current gamestate, nothing personal.

No, it's FFG's fault for not balancing the game better.

Maybe if they released common sense, no brainer balance patches once it has become apparent that a certain thing is a problem instead of sitting with their thumb up their *** for an entire year, we'd have a more fun meta game.

7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Why the venom? You are painting the people you are arguing against like "win at all costs" type of people, which can't be true of all of them.

Am I? How so?

I personally don't think there are more than a handful of WAAC players in existence. (The late, unlamented, ParagoombaSlayer was the only one I've ever encountered.)

But there's a vast area between "I'd let a player correct a clear catastrophic mistake on the first turn" and "I'd throw a player under the bus to win." And the people arguing against the former are clearly closer to the latter.

EDIT: In short, my argument has not been "You'd do anything to win," but rather "You would obviously do this to win. Why are you so loathe to admit your motive?"

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I am certainly a self-appointed advocate for flying and behaving more casually in X-Wing. If you want to call me self-righteous, feel free: I certainly try to behave righteously, and I try to convince others to do so, as well. (I don't always succeed -- at either -- and I admit that, too.) Given that I hold no actual authority to make people behave ethically or morally, I'm not an actual "arbiter." Similarly, given that all I actually do, beyond my own behavior, is argue for treating opponents decently in X-Wing, "militant" doesn't work, either. But those are subtle distinctions, and -- believe me! -- nobody expects you to get them.

So now, can you admit that all you really care about is winning that game of X-Wing? Or will you keep deflecting and making self-serving arguments?

Why does it have to just be winning? Why can't someone both want to have fun and win? You seem to be projecting a lot on people you disagree with.