18 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

No, I mean more that as more games go to time, that also means more of them feel "unresolved" due to lower turn count.

Answering this: yes, sometimes this can feel real bad. I've encountered this, but it's been more rare for me. Usually, even with the lower turn count, I'm feeling pretty content with the outcome.

I have had occasions where I'm clearly pushing to win with one more turn if it would just happen... but, you know, that existed before and could have happened in other scenarios as well. I'm pretty sure that's more an aspect of a timed game to begin with.

That is, if I'm completely understanding you now, clearly I had a disconnect earlier.

Top 8 match at Crossroads, had the game not gone to time I think I would have won vs Smittle who went on to win the whole event.

One of the best games I've ever played in X-Wing, he played great and deserved that win.

Going to time is just a parameter of the game.

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

Answering this: yes, sometimes this can feel real bad. I've encountered this, but it's been more rare for me. Usually, even with the lower turn count, I'm feeling pretty content with the outcome.

I have had occasions where I'm clearly pushing to win with one more turn if it would just happen... but, you know, that existed before and could have happened in other scenarios as well. I'm pretty sure that's more an aspect of a timed game to begin with.

That is, if I'm completely understanding you now, clearly I had a disconnect earlier.

you are.

For example, like EVERY game I've played against TIE swarm was unsatisfying, because every game felt like I would win if I just had like, 2 more turns. The TIE swarm just technically got ahead on points, and then would pretty clearly lose over time.

I eventually just moved to basically jousting it, to increase the number of turns I get, but the whole process was unsatisfying (and I did start winning, but it still sucked).

7 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I eventually just moved to basically jousting it, to increase the number of turns I get, but the whole process was unsatisfying (and I did start winning, but it still sucked).

All Podcasts: never joust the swarm

the Johnson: *jousts swarms*

https://images.app.goo.gl/tmNui8sr76dssFxi9

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

you are.

For example, like EVERY game I've played against TIE swarm was unsatisfying, because every game felt like I would win if I just had like, 2 more turns. The TIE swarm just technically got ahead on points, and then would pretty clearly lose over time.

I eventually just moved to basically jousting it, to increase the number of turns I get, but the whole process was unsatisfying (and I did start winning, but it still sucked).

Interestingly, I've not had that same experience vs the TIE swarms. I've had a couple, but most feel quite decided when I play against them. I can't speak for how my opponents felt when I flew my TIE swarm against them, of course, but I haven't done it enough to be worthy of comparison. The Scyk swarm I'm flying now seems also to be very decided most of the time with my opponents ready to throw in the towel early or me knowing I've been beaten as well.

Probably, I'm making riskier, unusual plays that either pay off big or cost me big. It'd be interesting data to see how most people feel about matches with swarms at time. Interesting, not necessarily good data.

I'm just surprised that so many of your matches feel unresolved, really.

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

Interestingly, I've not had that same experience vs the TIE swarms. I've had a couple, but most feel quite decided when I play against them. I can't speak for how my opponents felt when I flew my TIE swarm against them, of course, but I haven't done it enough to be worthy of comparison. The Scyk swarm I'm flying now seems also to be very decided most of the time with my opponents ready to throw in the towel early or me knowing I've been beaten as well.

Probably, I'm making riskier, unusual plays that either pay off big or cost me big. It'd be interesting data to see how most people feel about matches with swarms at time. Interesting, not necessarily good data.

I'm just surprised that so many of your matches feel unresolved, really.

Technically, I haven't divulged how my matches feel, but... yeah, many of mine do feel unresolved, actually. 😕

@Tlfj200 Slight clarification. Games that go to time that I win feel resolved. Everything else feels like a design problem.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

@Tlfj200 Slight clarification. Games that go to time that I win feel resolved. Everything else feels like a design problem.

There it is.

35 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I think people have overly fixated on games going to time and assumed "slow play" is the reason, but I suspect it's an artifact of points changes.

25 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

No, I mean more that as more games go to time, that also means more of them feel "unresolved" due to lower turn count.

Like one person wins, but both feel like the game could actually have gone either way with a few more turns.

These are different things, right?

• Did your game go to time?
• Was it anyone's game at time, or was there a clear winner and loser and the "lost" turns would've just been cleanup?
• Did the game go to time because a lower number of turns were played, or because an average number of turns was insufficient for a resolution?

1 minute ago, Micanthropyre said:

Going to time is just a parameter of the game.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

For example, like EVERY game I've played against TIE swarm was unsatisfying, because every game felt like I would win if I just had like, 2 more turns. The TIE swarm just technically got ahead on points, and then would pretty clearly lose over time.

Taking sports as an analog, that's exactly how a lot of them work. Soccer players run back and forth and whoever was up when the whistle was blown wins - the whistle could be blown 15 minutes sooner or later, and there could be good reasons to move that time around, but at the end of the day the threshold is arbitrary. Being "up on time" is the norm, "momentum" isn't scored.

X-Wing is weird because its played to elimination, like dodgeball or something.

But there's a perspective that acey lists "deserve" those extra turns, to try and win; while the TIE swarm doesn't "deserve" to win by scoring big in the first quarter, and then trying to hold on while their advantage fades into the second half. I don't know if that perspective is actually correct? I don't think most of the people I've seen hold it have actually thought about it, anyways; they could still all be correct on accident.

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Technically, I haven't divulged how my matches feel, but... yeah, many of mine do feel unresolved, actually. 😕

It's heavily implied!

Just now, LagJanson said:

It's heavily implied!

you're heavily implied!

This whole thread is heavily implied!

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

you're heavily implied!

This whole thread is heavily implied!

No u

45 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

No, I mean more that as more games go to time, that also means more of them feel "unresolved" due to lower turn count.

Like one person wins, but both feel like the game could actually have gone either way with a few more turns.


As for 1.0 - I had games go to time, but both players basically 'knew' who one more often than not in those gone-to-time games.

I had this literally last game night, on the final turn of the game my opponents fat decimater did 1 damage to poe to half him and win on points, but i still had half of poe and fully tallie on the board, my opponent won, but we were both like "really? that was it?" I've definitely made decisions at tournaments that were reflective of having to play around hitting time with multiple ships left on the board, which has felt foriegn to me. I initially assumed this was a side effect of my general fade away from x-wing, but its actaully a situation I haven't been in much. I generally played alot of beef and alot of defense stacking in 1e, and my games rarely went to time. Sidenote on games going to time, it's miserable at tournaments, when am i supposed to poop?

Unicorn clan is the only right choice, 30 minutes of game play followed by 35 minutes of break is the only good tournament plan

4 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

when am i supposed to poop?

Asking the real questions.

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

I think people have overly fixated on games going to time and assumed "slow play" is the reason, but I suspect it's an artifact of points changes.

What do you mean about the points changes? As in the addition of partial points on all ships is the root cause? Or that ship costing adjustments throws people off? (or something else?)

1 minute ago, Transmogrifier said:

What do you mean about the points changes? As in the addition of partial points on all ships is the root cause? Or that ship costing adjustments throws people off? (or something else?)

Moreso that it more easily allows "good" squads to be at higher ship counts, which inherently lowers turn count (moving more ships, more actions, more attacks, more defense).

27 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I guess I'm posing the question do those increased # of games that go to time "feel" resolved to one or both players, win or lose?

If the answer is no, that feels unsatisfying, and then the argument may be that "no, those things did not help"

Contrary to BoomOwl a significant percentage of them definitely do not feel resolved to me. There are certainly times where there is a clear and inevitable winner but others where a single turn of shooting could easy cause a lead change yet there hasn't been a shot fired in 2 turns since one player correctly identified their win condition. It does not feel good. Doubly so because there's always this niggling feeling that player won not because of superior flying but because of superior time management. Not to say the winner of every time game is slow playing, I've seen people who are up slamming dials down to give their opponents a chance (which highlights their desire for a real win over a timed one even if it diminishes their chances of said win). But the incentive to slow play is there and the core rules shouldn't be encouraging that behavior, especially when it's not just an edge case but something everyone will encounter multiple times in a tourney

Having said that, it's all relative and we have to pick our poison. While I don't love the non-resolutions they're still better than the massive list disparities and hyper powered combos that led to more definitive games in 1.0. 2.0 could be better but it's still better than 1.0

1.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 with objectives or altered scoring to encourage conclusion

28 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

I had this literally last game night, on the final turn of the game my opponents fat decimater did 1 damage to poe to half him and win on points, but i still had half of poe and fully tallie on the board, my opponent won, but we were both like "really? that was it?" I've definitely made decisions at tournaments that were reflective of having to play around hitting time with multiple ships left on the board, which has felt foriegn to me. I initially assumed this was a side effect of my general fade away from x-wing, but its actaully a situation I haven't been in much. I generally played alot of beef and alot of defense stacking in 1e, and my games rarely went to time. Sidenote on games going to time, it's miserable at tournaments, when am i supposed to poop?

Unicorn clan is the only right choice, 30 minutes of game play followed by 35 minutes of break is the only good tournament plan

I see alot of players remarking on how they "won or lost" a game by some small amount of MOV. I have done this in the past as a way of justifying to myself that I lost but only kinda lost since it was so close.

Eventually realized that I just don't remember the events that take place in games very clearly and I rarely actually understand what led to that moment or at least have a tendency not to be honest about it.

What you described of making decisions based on a win condition involving getting to time with multiple ships is easier to digest.

I do the same with Kylo. He almost never dies, just gives up half pts and loses at time a fate worse than death. The time belongs to him, my opponent stole it.

I think some really detailed explanations of how to review the way a game ended and what led to that moment and what you had control over or didnt is needed here.

People ( including myself ) need help understanding when Pts Scored are basically variance and when they are the result of decision making or the lists involved.

The Tie Swarm example is a good one.

• Usually against Tie Swarm I take the time to setup the perfect 3 angled attack, near or around rocks so I know where they will be.
• The speed with which you setup that 3 angled attack matters. Is that your Opponents Lists fault or my own risk aversion?
• If i am engaging a Tie Swarm 30 minutes into a game I am accepting risk that the game will end at time.
• That doesnt mean i need to joust immediately though.
• Just need to move more quickly to the spots on the board that allow the engage I want. More difficult than just "waiting" for them to go the place I need them. Going fast is "high skill" also known as risky.
• I dont think this is 100% a "Game Design" problem. Players still have some say in how, when, and where the game plays out.

5 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Contrary to BoomOwl a significant percentage of them definitely do not feel resolved to me. There are certainly times where there is a clear and inevitable winner but others where a single turn of shooting could easy cause a lead change yet there hasn't been a shot fired in 2 turns since one player correctly identified their win condition.

Is this even the same thing? This sounds like some other, additional complaint.

This is just listing the arguments I've seen people make, as I understand them, not me necessarily agreeing with any of them. So far, we've got:

• games going to time is bad, because games don't feel resolved
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes lists that run up early leads they can't hold
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes running away
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because people are slow-playing
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because 2.0 has higher ship counts/involves more decision making/etc
• games are going to time, because more rounds are required for resolution, because 2.0 has higher hp counts/less offensive dice modification/etc

no wonder everybody keeps talking past each other

2 minutes ago, svelok said:

Is this even the same thing? This sounds like some other, additional complaint.

This is just listing the arguments I've seen people make, as I understand them, not me necessarily agreeing with any of them. So far, we've got:

• games going to time is bad, because games don't feel resolved
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes lists that run up early leads they can't hold
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes running away
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because people are slow-playing
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because 2.0 has higher ship counts/involves more decision making/etc
• games are going to time, because more rounds are required for resolution, because 2.0 has higher hp counts/less offensive dice modification/etc

no wonder everybody keeps talking past each other

Reeks of people who hated the old system jonesing for the old system because it was familiar.

20 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Moreso that it more easily allows "good" squads to be at higher ship counts, which inherently lowers turn count (moving more ships, more actions, more attacks, more defense).

we also don't have the red dice power creep we did from 1.0, i can't remember the last time i skillfully earned a five die missile with greater than double mods. I get close with fenn sometimes, but not consistently. (I know, ironic that i'm bemoaning the lack of red dice power creep)

9 minutes ago, svelok said:

So far, we've got:

And all/most are true

13 minutes ago, svelok said:

Is this even the same thing? This sounds like some other, additional complaint.

This is just listing the arguments I've seen people make, as I understand them, not me necessarily agreeing with any of them. So far, we've got:

• games going to time is bad, because games don't feel resolved
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes lists that run up early leads they can't hold
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes running away
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because people are slow-playing
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because 2.0 has higher ship counts/involves more decision making/etc
• games are going to time, because more rounds are required for resolution, because 2.0 has higher hp counts/less offensive dice modification/etc

no wonder everybody keeps talking past each other

I think there's alot to digest which is why all the different responses, I haven't read the whole article yet, but the increase in volume of games going to time will affect a high number of players, and likely not in the same way.

28 minutes ago, svelok said:

Is this even the same thing? This sounds like some other, additional complaint.

This is just listing the arguments I've seen people make, as I understand them, not me necessarily agreeing with any of them. So far, we've got:

• games going to time is bad, because games don't feel resolved
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes lists that run up early leads they can't hold
• games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes running away
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because people are slow-playing
• games are going to time, because fewer rounds are being played, because 2.0 has higher ship counts/involves more decision making/etc
• games are going to time, because more rounds are required for resolution, because 2.0 has higher hp counts/less offensive dice modification/etc

no wonder everybody keeps talking past each other

Throw games are going to time because people are running aces with force/Regen that can't be easily caught and killed in

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Throw games are going to time because people are running aces with force/Regen that can't be easily caught and killed in

That would be:

4 minutes ago, jagsba said:

games going to time is bad, because it incentivizes running away