38 minutes ago, Rytackle said:

X-Wing is fun! Pew Pew Pew!

I was getting ready for a pretty lengthy post about the other side of the 'fun' coin, but yeah, that's the best way to end such a thread

20 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I was getting ready for a pretty lengthy post about the other side of the 'fun' coin, but yeah, that's the best way to end such a thread

Whoa, not so fast! First, I'm back. Second, I'd like to see off-topic discussions from the original Nationals thread continued here, so this thread could/should go on as long as offtopic happens over there.

3 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I feel you are trying to dictate how people have fun. Will someone have a bad time if that one list they flew goes out of favor or get nerfed? Yeah. But that in itself is a lesson. And an actual good sport will shake it off and try something new. Your objections to players who get angry about their meta cheese list not autowinning for them or it getting nerfed is more a case against bad sports, not the lists themselves. Those types of players are gonna be a pain no matter what. The annoyance level will only change flavor if they were making their own lists.

I don't really want to keep that uncommented.

First, that's not inherently bad. Not every kind of fun is legitimate - some forms can be very disruptive for a community. I argue against forms of fun that I percieve to be disruptive. So yes, I absolutely am trying to suppress some forms of fun.

Quote

Can be, but not always for every person. Like I've said in a different thread, there are different skills involved with listing building and flying. If someone only really cares about the flying aspect, then they are more likely to look around at what's doing well and looks fun. And they aren't getting the game wrong. They are playing how they want to play. I know you prize list building as a essential part of the game and to an extant, I do too. But not everyone does. Heck, when I started in this game, I played the "different to be different" list building game and it sucked. Now I fly what I like (whether that is something I made up or a cool list I saw someone using) and I am happier. Why should I be forced to go back to that because other people think I am not learning enough?

Depends on what you mean by essential. It's not essential in my understanding, but supporting the rest of the game: So you can play without listbuilding, but listbuilding will help you. You can play without metacheese, too, but metacheese can help you through a phase.

That's the beauty: you are not force to go back. You seem to take my point as extrinsic motivation through contempt and punishment, that I will do something because of the way you act. But my point is that your intrinsic motivation is affected, that YOU will do that something to YOURSELF because of the way you act. So I won't force you to go back. By now I'm convinced that a person - not necessarily you - that just netlists metacheese will not be happy with this game. Instead that person will eventually be more and more frustrated with the game until they stop playing.

Quote

And an actual good sport will shake it off and try something new. Your objections to players who get angry about their meta cheese list not autowinning for them or it getting nerfed is more a case against bad sports, not the lists themselves.

That's a fair point. But I argue that there is a slightly stronger connection between bad sports, meta cheese and netlisting.

Quote

You still have not addressed the point of people who do not have the time for listbuilding, but still want to fly. Are they a lessor X-Wing player because they only have time for one of the parts of the game?

I believe I did answer it before. Obviously people investing less time will be 'lesser' players than people training three times per week.
Listbuilding should have a positive effect. And using a different list (after consistently winning with the first) will have a positive effect. Both take additional time.

The point you make here is not really relevant though because that's clearly not the group I'm talking about. Somebody who can take several weekends to play X-Wing should also be able to spend half an hour to think up a list and train it. If he has no time for that then he's not the kind of player I'm - we are - talking about.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't really want to keep that uncommented.

First, that's not inherently bad. Not every kind of fun is legitimate - some forms can be very disruptive for a community. I argue against forms of fun that I percieve to be disruptive. So yes, I absolutely am trying to suppress some forms of fun.

Yes, but then we get into why you get to judge what is good and bad fun. Fun is subjective and different people have different ideas about what is fun. Are some types of fun destructive? Yes. But things like netlisting isn't one of them. Look at the person, not the list.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Depends on what you mean by essential. It's not essential in my understanding, but supporting the rest of the game: So you can play without listbuilding, but listbuilding will help you. You can play without metacheese, too, but metacheese can help you through a phase.

I used the word essentially based on what you said in another thread where you see it as part of the game. Others don't. They learn just fine seeing what goes together in the top slots.

12 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's the beauty: you are not force to go back. You seem to take my point as extrinsic motivation through contempt and punishment, that I will do something because of the way you act. But my point is that your intrinsic motivation is affected, that YOU will do that something to YOURSELF because of the way you act. So I won't force you to go back. By now I'm convinced that a person - not necessarily you - that just netlists metacheese will not be happy with this game. Instead that person will eventually be more and more frustrated with the game until they stop playing.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. I'm saying that I learn whether I'm playing a netlist or homebrew, and you say that's fine, countering what you opened with. I regulate myself, yes, but not to the standards you are putting forth.

20 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's a fair point. But I argue that there is a slightly stronger connection between bad sports, meta cheese and netlisting.

Stronger, perhaps, but not exclusively. Some of the most tiresome players I have come across (at least in physically playing) don't use meta cheese and not a ton of netlisting. A lot of your language seems aimed at the bad sports, but your terms tend to suggest the broader audience.

24 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I believe I did answer it before. Obviously people investing less time will be 'lesser' players than people training three times per week.
Listbuilding should have a positive effect. And using a different list (after consistently winning with the first) will have a positive effect. Both take additional time.

I am not talking about skill. I'm talking about in consideration. Should that person be looked down upon because he doesn't have time for listbuilding and is taking something he saw online that looked good and fun?

27 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The point you make here is not really relevant though because that's clearly not the group I'm talking about. Somebody who can take several weekends to play X-Wing should also be able to spend half an hour to think up a list and train it. If he has no time for that then he's not the kind of player I'm - we are - talking about.

As I said above, you language is having a shotgun affect. You said it is not a good thing to use top lists in your opening statement of this thread. I and others have explained why we disagree and have gained insight from using said lists. If your intent is to merely look at the toxic subset of netlisters, you need to be more specific. Unless you want to redefine your objectives, I still stand by that the guy who's just grabbing a list online so he can play is in this conversations because you have said what he is doing is not good.

13 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But things like netlisting isn't one of them. Look at the person, not the list.

I explained why I see nonreflective, humility-lacking netlisting to be disruptive.

13 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I'm saying that I learn whether I'm playing a netlist or homebrew, and you say that's fine, countering what you opened with.

I said cheese (in the paragraph below further specified to be similar but not the same as netlisting top lists).

My view on netlisting (as mentioned several times in the corresponding thread) is that netlisting for one game is no problem, at all. Netlisting constantly (= a netlister who just copies a list and puts it on the table) can be ok under certain conditions, eg humility wrt wins, or reflection on what he can learn with the list and what he can‘t.

But lack of those in a situation where the netlist does much of the work, I see it as detrimental for both the player and the community.

22 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Stronger, perhaps, but not exclusively.

Which I neither said nor implied.

23 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

A lot of your language seems aimed at the bad sports, but your terms tend to suggest the broader audience.

Now you are mixing things. Even the good sports can land in the netlist trap. There is a tendency, but that‘s not necessary.

Again: relying on the netlist is negative in the long term.

25 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I am not talking about skill. I'm talking about in consideration. Should that person be looked down upon because he doesn't have time for listbuilding and is taking something he saw online that looked good and fun?

My opening remark is very clearly aimed at skill and the try to improve it. That‘s why your strawman is not really relevant.

But to answer anyway: that depends. Is the person trying to improve in the longterm, or just wants to play some games at a FLGS? Does the person realize that simply printing a top list and flying it will distort their selfperception? Is the person humble in victory, understanding that their list played a disproportionally large part?

One thing to note with these questions: they are all internal, reflexive. I won‘t know. But the person will. And the person will kmow wherher I look down on them or not - I won‘t know that.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I explained why I see nonreflective, humility-lacking netlisting to be disruptive.

Then let us discuss how much humility is required. Simply taking a net list isn't enough to win something like a tournament. Player skill is required to utilize the tools of the list properly. To me, that trumps list building savy and as long as the player isn't trying to unjustly claim to be the inventor, then they should get praise for their prowess. Do you believe list building trumps flying it?(Usually clause about proper sportsmanship.)

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I said cheese (in the paragraph below further specified to be similar but not the same as netlisting top lists).

But when the cheese IS the top meta and there are people playing it for non-hostile reasons, you can see where those similarities can blur together.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

My view on netlisting (as mentioned several times in the corresponding thread) is that netlisting for one game is no problem, at all. Netlisting constantly (= a netlister who just copies a list and puts it on the table) can be ok under certain conditions, eg humility wrt wins, or reflection on what he can learn with the list and what he can‘t.

But lack of those in a situation where the netlist does much of the work, I see it as detrimental for both the player and the community.

But if they want to use it for more than one game? There are several lists I took to multiple tournaments because I enjoyed flying them. Could I have made a new list? Yeah, but why when I can still have fun with the same old list? I personally don't always netlist, but likewise I do it more than you seem to think is health, but I'm still doing okay and having fun. I understand lists better when I use them directly and don't feel the constant need to make something new, is I'll go back to lists I just had plan fun with. No need to learn, though some lessons do pop up.

Again, what you are saying is against bad sports, who will be so even if meta cheese and netlisting didn't exist.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Which I neither said nor implied.

But I point I feel compelled to reiterate. I've seen quite a bit of blanket statements and assumptions that all those who use even meta cheese are villains (not from you) that I felt it was necessary to make sure people were reminded that netlisters were not the only ones with these kind of players.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Now you are mixing things. Even the good sports can land in the netlist trap. There is a tendency, but that‘s not necessary.

Again: relying on the netlist is negative in the long term.

But maybe they are okay in that trap? If they are good sports, they'll dust themselves off and move on when the music stops. And the idea that their skills will somehow stagnant during this period is rather short sighted. If someone plays the same list for (extreme case) a year, he will have had to deal with several meta shifts and likely multiple versions of counter lists to his own. In that time, he has to learn how to switch up his tactics, adjust to new target priority, and how to live with the weaknesses of the list. Those are lessons and skills that can aid him in building for the future, or deciding what Netlist he wants to use next.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

My opening remark is very clearly aimed at skill and the try to improve it. That‘s why your strawman is not really relevant.

But to answer anyway: that depends. Is the person trying to improve in the longterm, or just wants to play some games at a FLGS? Does the person realize that simply printing a top list and flying it will distort their selfperception? Is the person humble in victory, understanding that their list played a disproportionally large part?

One thing to note with these questions: they are all internal, reflexive. I won‘t know. But the person will. And the person will kmow wherher I look down on them or not - I won‘t know that.

I still don't see it as irrelevant as that guy's circumstances are probably unknown to you if you are meeting at a store kit or something. So your assumption that he is either a netlister who is not doing something you condone, or is just somebody trying a list to understand it misses the mark. Your answer that it depends is my very point. You are making assumptions about people based on their list. You don't know their story, what they are going through right now, or even their personal tastes. All you have is right now and his list isn't a good basis for a conclusion.

I guess my point boils down to be careful how you apply your view on netlisting and meta cheese. Not everyone learns or enjoys the game the exact same way as you. People like meta cheese bad sports do exist, but take time to figure out who these people are rather than making snap judgments.

Again, this is not just on you, but on anyone who plays this game, another game, or is going through life in general.

21 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Whoa, not so fast! First, I'm back. Second, I'd like to see off-topic discussions from the original Nationals thread continued here, so this thread could/should go on as long as offtopic happens over there.

Okay

What I was about to say is that some people (Jeff Wilder being the most vocal exponent) claim netlisting in small tournaments is bad because it only takes the fun of the netlister into account, without caring about the other guy.

My question is: at what point does not-netlisting consider the other guy's fun? Again, this is in a tournament. If you are bringing an original list that's significantly weaker than the meta, then you play a few netlisters and get wrecked 100-0, have you not willingly deprived them of the fun of a challenging game?

Few points to start:

1. We should try to properly define netlister and netlisting; 'bad sportsmanship'; WAAC; "cheese".
2. We can discuss if or why there is a slightly stronger but not exclusive connection between netlisters/-ing and bad sportsmanship, WAAC
3. I distinguish two effects of netlisting: one is on the player themself, and why it can be bad for them. Another effect is on the local group and why it can be bad for all others - we did not talk about this part as far as I'm concerned, but I know Jeff did.

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Then let us discuss how much humility is required.

That is a way more nuanced discussion and more difficult to have had in a forum.

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Simply taking a net list isn't enough to win something like a tournament. Player skill is required to utilize the tools of the list properly. To me, that trumps list building savy and as long as the player isn't trying to unjustly claim to be the inventor, then they should get praise for their prowess. Do you believe list building trumps flying it?(Usually clause about proper sportsmanship.)

Flying trumps listbuilding. Recently though (or not recently, the last year) listbuilding became more and more important relative to its previous (!) importance. It's not more important than flying, not yet. But definitely more important than it was. An objective measure is the amount of upgrades per ship, and the strong trend towards 2-ship lists. We have these numbers and I think that point is pretty much fact by now.

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But when the cheese IS the top meta and there are people playing it for non-hostile reasons, you can see where those similarities can blur together.

I went on to explain cheese and explicitly said "I liken this established cheese [in other games] to using the objectively most powerful lists. I'm not saying it is the same thing, but I'm saying my reasoning is the same". What do you mean when you say cheese?

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But if they want to use it for more than one game? [...] No need to learn, though some lessons do pop up.

Again, what you are saying is against bad sports, who will be so even if meta cheese and netlisting didn't exist.

They can of course. Again: they don't have to adjust their behavior because of me. But I will think less of them the longer they keep using the same list.
Also at this point we really have to define bad sports and netlister.

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But maybe they are okay in that trap? If they are good sports, they'll dust themselves off and move on when the music stops. And the idea that their skills will somehow stagnant during this period is rather short sighted. If someone plays the same list for (extreme case) a year, he will have had to deal with several meta shifts and likely multiple versions of counter lists to his own. In that time, he has to learn how to switch up his tactics, adjust to new target priority, and how to live with the weaknesses of the list. Those are lessons and skills that can aid him in building for the future, or deciding what Netlist he wants to use next.

So here's my claim and explanation of what I call netlisting trap: the benefit of netlisting is time dependent, similar to this curve. Y-axis is the benefit increase (instead of temperature) and X-axis is the amount of games played (instead of time):

After a certain amount of games (which are probably player dependent), the benefit you get out of a game decreases. But your summed up benefit (y-axis) will look like this over time (x-axis)

So you don't get worse upon keeping playing the same list. But you won't improve as much anymore. Anytime the meta changed, or new counters showed up there will be again some increase.

And that is the point where I think netlisting becomes a problem for the player themself. Sure they can dust off and move on. But they could have done so earlier.

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I still don't see it as irrelevant as that guy's circumstances are probably unknown to you if you are meeting at a store kit or something. So your assumption that he is either a netlister who is not doing something you condone, or is just somebody trying a list to understand it misses the mark. Your answer that it depends is my very point. You are making assumptions about people based on their list. You don't know their story, what they are going through right now, or even their personal tastes. All you have is right now and his list isn't a good basis for a conclusion.

I guess my point boils down to be careful how you apply your view on netlisting and meta cheese. Not everyone learns or enjoys the game the exact same way as you. People like meta cheese bad sports do exist, but take time to figure out who these people are rather than making snap judgments.

I think you should have realized by now that I was always talking about longer timeframes than a snap judgement. I wrote "mid/long term" so often that it feels redundant by now. Again: I WON'T KNOW! But the person will know. I'm describing what I see as wrong. But just the person will know whether I judge them for their behavior or not. I will not know. But I am able to form an opinion after playing the person for months and years, and that opinion will become more accurate over time.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Few points to start:

1. We should try to properly define netlister and netlisting; 'bad sportsmanship'; WAAC; "cheese".
2. We can discuss if or why there is a slightly stronger but not exclusive connection between netlisters/-ing and bad sportsmanship, WAAC
3. I distinguish two effects of netlisting: one is on the player themself, and why it can be bad for them. Another effect is on the local group and why it can be bad for all others - we did not talk about this part as far as I'm concerned, but I know Jeff did.

Some clarification would be helpful.

1. Definition of terms as I know them: Netlisting; using a list found online for what ever reason. Netlister; someone who uses netlists. Bad Sportsmanship; not conducting oneself in a respectful, honest, and fair way. WAAC; don't know, haven't used this term. Cheese; see @SEApocalypse 's post for my definition of the term.

2. The why is obvious, but rather irrelevant. Players like that exist in all gaming philosophies. They are the one group you will not get through to. Trust me.

3. Can be, but it is not as detrimental a thing as you claim. Multiple people have shared their experiences with it and how it has improved their skills. You mention this point occasionally, but seemed loathed to do it.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

That is a way more nuanced discussion and more difficult to have had in a forum.

Fair enough.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Flying trumps listbuilding. Recently though (or not recently, the last year) listbuilding became more and more important relative to its previous (!) importance. It's not more important than flying, not yet. But definitely more important than it was. An objective measure is the amount of upgrades per ship, and the strong trend towards 2-ship lists. We have these numbers and I think that point is pretty much fact by now.

But it is still not there yet. Hence why I think whether someone wins with a homebrew or a netlist, they deserve the praise for winning.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I went on to explain cheese and explicitly said "I liken this established cheese [in other games] to using the objectively most powerful lists. I'm not saying it is the same thing, but I'm saying my reasoning is the same". What do you mean when you say cheese?

Defined above.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

They can of course. Again: they don't have to adjust their behavior because of me. But I will think less of them the longer they keep using the same list.
Also at this point we really have to define bad sports and netlister.

And while that is your right, I question the validity of it. If someone is having fun and not directly bothering you, why should you judge them for playing how they want to play?

Netlister definition is above. A bad sport engages in bad sportsmanship. They are generally neither polite or respectful. Self-centered. Do not accept defeat or set backs with grace or congratulations. Little to no attempts to adapt when their list falls out of favor (both for netlisting and non-netlisting versions).

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

So here's my claim and explanation of what I call netlisting trap: the benefit of netlisting is time dependent, similar to this curve. Y-axis is the benefit increase (instead of temperature) and X-axis is the amount of games played (instead of time):

After a certain amount of games (which are probably player dependent), the benefit you get out of a game decreases. But your summed up benefit (y-axis) will look like this over time (x-axis)

So you don't get worse upon keeping playing the same list. But you won't improve as much anymore. Anytime the meta changed, or new counters showed up there will be again some increase.

And that is the point where I think netlisting becomes a problem for the player themself. Sure they can dust off and move on. But they could have done so earlier.

But it is still progress for those who want it and potentially enjoyment. Learning is all well and good, but this is a hobby, thus people should follow what they want to do, not treat it like a school course where they are expected to make progress. There are also other ways you can stagnate, even with homebrew.

Since it is your claim, do you have conclusive backing data?

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I think you should have realized by now that I was always talking about longer timeframes than a snap judgement. I wrote "mid/long term" so often that it feels redundant by now. Again: I WON'T KNOW! But the person will know. I'm describing what I see as wrong. But just the person will know whether I judge them for their behavior or not. I will not know. But I am able to form an opinion after playing the person for months and years, and that opinion will become more accurate over time.

You are assuming a heck of a lot on another person. There are some pretty obvious people out there, on top of people who's view of the game is different enough from yours that they won't get the signals. This idea of "you know what you did wrong", even in long term, is silly.

You are still ascribing your definition of right and wrong on a subjective topic. What is right or wrong for you in this game can be different for someone else (excluding cheating behavior and the like).

WAAC: "Win At All Costs"

And the attitude that is implied for someone to play to win at all costs , including sportsmanship.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

WAAC: "Win At All Costs"

And the attitude that is implied for someone to play to win at all costs , including sportsmanship.

Imo the lack of sportsmanship and rules lawyering is the difference that makes someone a WAAC player.

Just now, Timathius said:

Imo the lack of sportsmanship and rules lawyering is the difference that makes someone a WAAC player.

Even that's a slipperly slope of inference.

I'm a Rules Lawyer, for example. You just have to check out the Armada Forums and ask about me for that... And I'll never deny it.

I of course demand that my opponents both understand and play to the rules.

But I also have trophies proclaiming best sportsmanship in multiple tournaments in multiple game systems.

So yes, I get offended when people infer that Rules Lawyering is bad.

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Even that's a slipperly slope of inference.

I'm a Rules Lawyer, for example. You just have to check out the Armada Forums and ask about me for that... And I'll never deny it.

I of course demand that my opponents both understand and play to the rules.

But I also have trophies proclaiming best sportsmanship in multiple tournaments in multiple game systems.

So yes, I get offended when people infer that Rules Lawyering is bad.

I think knowing the rules and rules lawyering are two very separate things. When I think rules lawyering I think of someone twisting the rules to their advantage outside of their obvious intent. A good example in xwing would be someone leaving templates out on the table and using them to gauge their movements.

5 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I think knowing the rules and rules lawyering are two very separate things. When I think rules lawyering I think of someone twisting the rules to their advantage outside of their obvious intent. A good example in xwing would be someone leaving templates out on the table and using them to gauge their movements.

The definition of the Rules Lawyer is someone using the letter without reference to the spirit.

Personally, the person you are describing there, I feel, would be best described as "Cheat"

Because I am all about the Rules as Written.

These are effectively permissive rules-sets. You cannot do something the rules don't say you can. If you assume otherwise, you get into the "kill and eat your dog" scenario.

The very letter of the rules don't say that you can leave the templates on the table and use them to judge. They say that the play space is for ships, obstacles and tokens. Then you have permission to use the templates during maneuvers, but otherwise they are in the supply.

That's the letter of the rule.

Someone disobeying the letter of the rule isn't a Rules Lawyer. They are, at best, ignorant of the rules, and at worst, a Cheat.

But hey, WHILE we're talking about Slippery Slopes and Strawmen... Look at what I've written there! WOW.

Not to point to anyone else at all, but at least I understand I'm a hypocritical bastard

I think one of the best examples of rules lawyering I've seen in X-wing (done by PGS if I remember correctly) is something like this: opponent has several ships of the same PS, asks if it's ok to move them all, then do all actions, PGS confirms. They do it like this for a few turns, until a crucial engagement turn, when opponent moves all his ships, then PGS informs him that he can only take an action with the last ship, as he missed the opportunity for all others and having allowed it until that point creates no obligation for him to keep allowing it for the whole game.

That pretty much sums up what I understand by Rules Lawyering: selectively enforcing and/or bringing up the rules in a way that benefits yourself most.

Right, which is why you ask every single turn.

Of course, in arguable the best example of Rules Lawyering itself ...

"

The definition of the Rules Lawyer is someone using the letter without reference to the spirit."

The definition I used (and quoted) was Wiki's definition. Free off any Spirits and "I thinks"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer

" A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules -based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment."

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Of course, in arguable the best example of Rules Lawyering itself ...

The definition I used (and quoted) was Wiki's definition. Free off any Spirits and "I thinks"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer

" A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules -based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment."

In miniatures wargaming the meaning of rules lawyer has always what lordblades and I have said. For the last two decades of me being in this community at the very least it has meant someone twisting the rules to their advantage AND what you have stated above.

6 hours ago, Timathius said:

I think knowing the rules and rules lawyering are two very separate things. When I think rules lawyering I think of someone twisting the rules to their advantage outside of their obvious intent. A good example in xwing would be someone leaving templates out on the table and using them to gauge their movements.

I think a better example of the negatives that come with what is perceived as a WAAC or rules lawyering player was what paragoombaslayer was most notorious for sharing- That in the early rounds of a game, he would say nothing when an opponent would move all of their ships of the same PS one after another before giving them actions (ships with only stationary actions such as TL and focus), acting as if he was perfectly fine with his opponent doing this.

But then once the ships got into range of his ships, after the final ship in the PS train was activated and the player reached for the focus tokens, he would say "sorry, you missed the action phase for those other ships. The only ship that can perform an action is the last one you activated."

Is he in the right to deny his opponent the actions, rules as written? Yes.

Is it unsportsmanlike for him to not inform his opponent that what he is doing in the initial rounds is not the correct ordering for performing actions with the intention of exploiting this later on?

You tell me.

I'm sorry I missed this thread as I think it's likely got some great discussions of what I think it probably a key issue in X-Wing. This forum talks so much about 'casual vs competitive' as though the two are distinct, but really there's a whole slew of shades of grey between the two and they're often completely intermingled unless you're at one extreme or the other.

You go to Worlds, that's competitive, you go to an epic/missions play session and it's casual - that's obvious - but if you go to a Store Champs there's some people there being cutthroat competitive and some people trying to have fun. But then, the friday before the store championship, are the competitive players supposed to be playing casual stuff or can they practice? What about two weeks before? Three weeks before? Where's the line. Is there a line? If they're enjoying playing cutthroat competitive X-Wing why should they have to stop doing that... ever?

The impression I've got, anecdotally from those around me, is that two things have happened in the last 18 months that have conspired to exacerbate the problem.

1. Competitive play got more competitive.

• An influx of competitive players from other games, adding the System Opens, disruption to the X-Wing 'season' that pitched us from the end of one season right into the beginning of another... whatever the factors it seems like people are trying harder to be good. That bleeds out into the community in the form of more people being more prepared to play 'the best ships' and to try and improve themselves and play better with them. That drive to not only play 'the right thing' but to play it as well as they can means that the whole concept of an 'off-season' where they play other stuff can get replaced by pressure to get a head start on practicing for the next competitive season.
• I have a good friend who plays X-Wing a whole bunch, we met during Store Champs 2016 when he was playing janky A-Wings and having fun and since then he's spent a whole season playing Deadeye Scouts, then Dengaroo, then Paratanni... and he's having a bit less fun (by his own admission he's burning out) but he's winning a lot more games.

2. Competitive Lists opened a gap on the rest

• I think it's been said in here 'there's always a top few lists' and yes that's true, but one measure of the game is how much of an advantage they have over the rest of field. I think we have seen that advantage increase from the moment Deadeye Scouts hit the table, then untouchable Palp Aces, then Dengaroo, then untouchable Defenders, then Paratanni, then DenTel, now Nym. The stakes are higher, the ways that the best list punish their opponents are more extreme. I think it's like how 'Time To Kill' works in first person shooters, some FPS games have a very low TTK and they're very skillful and twitchy games but they have a really steep learning curve - if you're bad you die so fast and so often that you never have time to really play the game.

Combined these two factors make it harder for 'casual' players to avoid 'competitive' players and 'competitive' games. There's more of those players around, and they're spending less time playing non-competitive lists. It also means that 'casual' players are enjoying the games they have to play against 'competitive' players that much less, because the amount they're outmatched is now so painfully clear.

There is no clear solution for this, I think. Where communities are large enough to be able to support both those types of players and they can find their own kind then it will work, but there are many places where the community is not large enough for that.