Hello all!

Vincent here posting this week, I'll try to follow Jeff's excellent episode summaries for this week.

https://wwwargaming.podbean.com/e/wide-world-of-wargaming-x-wing-ep-30-gencon-gone-wild/

We start off with a wandering debate about the efficacy of various GenCon top finishers mostly centered around the belle of the ball, Michael Doyle's Torkil Swarm. There's also a revisit of the long simmering debate about Republic Regen Aces. Then considering some of the events of GenCon, we do a general overview of the floor rules and share a few of our favorite stories about Gamers gone wild.

As always we would love if you would like us on Podbean, share us with your friends and rate us on iTunes!

2 minutes ago, FlyAndtheMighty said:

Hello all!

Vincent here posting this week, I'll try to follow Jeff's excellent episode summaries for this week.

https://wwwargaming.podbean.com/e/wide-world-of-wargaming-x-wing-ep-30-gencon-gone-wild/

We start off with a wandering debate about the efficacy of various GenCon top finishers mostly centered around the belle of the ball, Michael Doyle's Torkil Swarm. There's also a revisit of the long simmering debate about Republic Regen Aces. Then considering some of the events of GenCon, we do a general overview of the floor rules and share a few of our favorite stories about Gamers gone wild.

As always we would love if you would like us on Podbean, share us with your friends and rate us on iTunes!

I hope Jeff is okay.

On 8/9/2019 at 12:13 PM, Hiemfire said:

I hope Jeff is okay.

Awww. (Jeff is fine. I've had a very old friend visiting for a few days, and I think Vince just got tired of waiting for me to advertise the latest episode.)

Mooooooooisture Hyyyyyyype!

Wide World of Wargaming (X-Wing) episode 31, recorded Sunday, 8/10/19, is available!

https://wwwargaming.podbean.com/e/wide-world-of-wargaming-x-wing-episode-31-total-california-domination/

So, fair warning, I'm advertising this without listening first, but I didn't want to deny anybody their Ryan Farmer, so it's a risk I'm willing to take. This is a longer episode for us; it's not as long as the average on many other podcasts, and I don't really remember any non-productive time, so I think you're going to find this great commute fodder.

Drew, Vince, Ryan, and I cover a huge amount of ground, discussing GenCon results, a little Buenos Aires, ask ourselves if we'd TAP that, talk a little bit about whether we think Force is properly priced, discuss the fairness of regen in 2E, and Ryan vigorously defends the costing of low- to mid-Init T-65 X-wings. And that's just what I can remember! Drew, in particular, was having a ball, and if you've listened to us more than a couple of times, you know that when Drew is having fun it's usually a good show!

We want to sincerely thank Ryan for (1) being a guest, and (2) being a fantastic guest, just as fellow Mynock (oops!) Steven Gonzales was a couple of episodes ago. It was a genuine pleasure, Ryan.

Oh, and speaking of that, now that we've started collecting, we need Dee (he and I share a long and murky Secret Society history), Dallas (he first whipped my butt in the 2014 Burlingame Regionals ... yes, with a TIE swarm), and Andrew Seely (who I don't know from Adam, but given that he's involved with these guys, he has to be a good egg). All you gotta do, guys, is speak up, we'll get you on the show, and you can help us complete Fly Better Bingo.

As always, valued listeners: rate us on iTunes, point a friend in our direction, and leave any comments, questions, or suggestions wherever you're reading this, or on the Wide World of Wargaming FB page. We honestly want to hear from you, even -- almost especially -- if you have ideas for how we can improve the show. Don't be shy.

Farmer is wrong about only looking within a faction when balancing ships in that faction. If there is no cross comparison between factions during the balancing process we end up with factions that when looked at with that singular narrow lense appear to be balanced, but when put on the table against other factions stand no chance even at a casual level. This is true for any game.

18 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Farmer is wrong about only looking within a faction when balancing ships in that faction. If there is no cross comparison between factions during the balancing process we end up with factions that when looked at with that singular narrow lense appear to be balanced, but when put on the table against other factions stand no chance even at a casual level. This is true for any game.

I go back and forth just a little on this, honestly.

For practical purposes, I agree with you and disagree with @Rytackle -- if nothing else, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that FFG doesn't compare the T-65 and the T-70 (and, hey, the Kihraxz for that matter) when making balance decisions regarding those ships.

On a more abstract level, you're both right: you've outlined your case above, and Ryan is right -- to some extent -- that it doesn't matter if the T-70 and T-65 aren't balanced against each other, as long as their respective factions are balanced against each other.

But I think even that runs into a pragmatic wall, at some point: ARC-170s, Z-95s, Y-wings, HWK-290s, and so on ... if these ships are better balanced by faction, then it would follow that their costs could pretty wildly deviate depending on what faction they are in. And I just don't believe FFG thinks that, e.g., a Hired Gun and a Gold Squadron Veteran should ever be more than a point apart. (To save people looking it up -- I had to! -- they are both 33 points. The GSV has +1 Init, the HG has an Illicit.)

Thanks for listening, Hiemfire!

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I go back and forth just a little on this, honestly.

For practical purposes, I agree with you and disagree with @Rytackle -- if nothing else, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that FFG doesn't compare the T-65 and the T-70 (and, hey, the Kihraxz for that matter) when making balance decisions regarding those ships.

On a more abstract level, you're both right: you've outlined your case above, and Ryan is right -- to some extent -- that it doesn't matter if the T-70 and T-65 aren't balanced against each other, as long as their respective factions are balanced against each other.

But I think even that runs into a pragmatic wall, at some point: ARC-170s, Z-95s, Y-wings, HWK-290s, and so on ... if these ships are better balanced by faction, then it would follow that their costs could pretty wildly deviate depending on what faction they are in. And I just don't believe FFG thinks that, e.g., a Hired Gun and a Gold Squadron Veteran should ever be more than a point apart. (To save people looking it up -- I had to! -- they are both 33 points. The GSV has +1 Init, the HG has an Illicit.)

Thanks for listening, Hiemfire!

The Binyare has an illicit at + 1 compared to a Bandit (cost +1 over the Bandit) and the BSS has Illicit + 1 init on the Tala (costs + 2 over). With as meh as the Illicits are HWKs, Ys and Z-95s are being taxed for a mostly useless slot. Imho that slot tax should be removed from the ships and rolled into the upgrades instead.

Maybe worthy of a topic on its own to not derail this thread, but it is a criticism that also applies to you guys, even if you are by far not the worst offenders. I haven't listened yet to the latest episode, but I am quite certain that it happened in the past on your podcsst.

Isn't it fascinating how much weight we give to a single point? I'm still a bit in 1.0 for reference, and I can't believe that we can argue about half a 1.0 point, nor that half a 1.0 point would make or break a pilot or upgrade.

And more generally, how discussions on podcasts and elsewhere changed to correct vs incorrect costs? Points cost are the new list discussions. But a bit worse because list building was clearly up for variance in execution while people think (or pretend) that they know the perfectly balanced, correct point cost of something.

Both have something dishonest to me. I don't believe that anyone thinks e.g. Kylo is OP at 75 but perfectly fine at 76. But discussing single points carries that implication to me. And I hope nobody is as certain as they pretend to be on individual costs, and more so when the difference is a single point.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Maybe worthy of a topic on its own to not derail this thread, but it is a criticism that also applies to you guys, even if you are by far not the worst offenders. I haven't listened yet to the latest episode, but I am quite certain that it happened in the past on your podcsst.

Isn't it fascinating how much weight we give to a single point? I'm still a bit in 1.0 for reference, and I can't believe that we can argue about half a 1.0 point, nor that half a 1.0 point would make or break a pilot or upgrade.

And more generally, how discussions on podcasts and elsewhere changed to correct vs incorrect costs? Points cost are the new list discussions. But a bit worse because list building was clearly up for variance in execution while people think (or pretend) that they know the perfectly balanced, correct point cost of something.

Both have something dishonest to me. I don't believe that anyone thinks e.g. Kylo is OP at 75 but perfectly fine at 76. But discussing single points carries that implication to me. And I hope nobody is as certain as they pretend to be on individual costs, and more so when the difference is a single point.

To be fair, that "single point" locks S&V out of flying a straight up 7 Z missile swarm other than Ion. While I'm not making a statement towards viability of it, it does force Scum Players considering Z-95s in the cheap missile spam role to either take 5 + something else, jump faction, or to fully discard the idea of a Z-95 ordinance swarm... 1 point per ship in aggregate does add up, so "merely" 1 point does make a difference. It also means that Scum Y-Wings are taking an initiative hit to field an otherwise identical build in relation to their Rebel counterparts. Goons "might" be able to "block better", but they're more susceptible to being initiative killed than Greys thanks to it. Not an equitable trade off in my opinion.

9 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

To be fair, that "single point" locks S&V out of flying a straight up 7 Z missile swarm other than Ion.

And that is a fair point. I meant more in general, not you two guys right here, and not Zs specifically. In that specific case it does make or break a list.

The single point matters when a list adds up to 201 points and there is nothing to be changed in terms of upgrades without crippling the list. But there are many examples, many hours of podcasts that I've listened to in the past year where a single point was not as important. It is up to a listener to figure it out when it's hyperbole and when it's accurate - and that's not optimal.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

And that is a fair point. I meant more in general, not you two guys right here, and not Zs specifically. In that specific case it does make or break a list.

The single point matters when a list adds up to 201 points and there is nothing to be changed in terms of upgrades without crippling the list. But there are many examples, many hours of podcasts that I've listened to in the past year where a single point was not as important. It is up to a listener to figure it out when it's hyperbole and when it's accurate - and that's not optimal.

I see what you're getting at now.

I definitely agree, and I've actually stopped myself more than once when I was about to suggest that 1 point might make some difference in an individual card's viability. In addition, I've actively expressed my annoyance that FFG makes (initial) changes of a single point. I've not fully explained why, but the implication is there that it's because I think 1 point is rarely a difference that is found by incremental testing on the first guess ... better to modify by 2 or more, observe, and then modify again. It could be that a given upgrade ends up with a 1 point change ... it's just kinda silly to assume it will on first change.

But, in addition to what Hiemfire said, it's with pointing out two other things: (1) If 1 point really doesn't make a difference ... there was no reason to go to a 200 point scale. And (2), with the existing (IMO terrible for the game) bid mechanic, 1 point can easily be the difference between your aces moving first or moving last. And the impact of that on a game or tournament is huge.

So ... I really do think FFG should strive to get costs right, even down to the single point. I just wish they'd work toward it in a smarter, more systematic, way.

A comment on episode 31 and half points:

What I started doing is to enter my opponent's list into launchbay. Then, during the game, I tell them that I'm going to check the points and tell them the current score. It is a bit too proactive, but it still feels a bit unpleasant to look it up myself without saying anything.

Also, we usually hand each other the squad sheets in the beginning, and both can check as often as they want during the game.

As a side note, I've noticed how different squad sheets can give a severe disadvantage or advantage, and that seems like a huge error of the system.

The max variant that helps your opponent and puts yourself at a disadvantage is to print out a yasb list where all card text and stats are shown in detail. That was my go-to and the Euros is the first time that I will print out from the official squadbuilder.

The intermediate version is the official squadbuilder with only initiative, names, and points, including half points. This feels already a bit dirty, but I understand that it's the new normal.

The worst version is the handwritten version. It was an option at the SOS Paris hyperspace qualifier and I do not know about the main event. But allowing this is extremely questionable and leaves your opponent in the dark to the point where it's outright unfair. I realized because I had lost my second yasb printout and had to write it down. I tried to counter it by thoroughly explaining the interactions. Which would usually be an extremely stupid thing to do because it's part of the game to figure it out.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

As a side note, I've noticed how different squad sheets can give a severe disadvantage or advantage, and that seems like a huge error of the system.

The max variant that helps your opponent and puts yourself at a disadvantage is to print out a yasb list where all card text and stats are shown in detail. That was my go-to and the Euros is the first time that I will print out from the official squadbuilder.

I have done this in every tournament since Geordan created YASB. I always have an extra print-out, with all information, available to my opponent. When you say it's a "disadvantage" for me, what do you mean? Are you speaking relatively? I.e., because I'm providing open information to my opponents proactively, I'm hurting myself?

That seems to be Vince's position, and to some extent Ryan's. (I'm not sure about Drew.) It really, really seems like a twisted and cynical view of the play of the game and the players in the game, to me. Am I wrong about that?

(As an aside, I did what I said I was going to do. I made square sheets with scoring info on them and handed one to each of my opponents at the Sacramento HST. Every singole opponent glanced at it, then handed it back, clearly puzzled as to what it was for. So I kinda shrug.)

Haha, so many questions here!

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I have done this in every tournament since Geordan created YASB. I always have an extra print-out, with all information, available to my opponent.

Wait, you have to have an extra print out at events, right? Or is that just a local rule? Our events always have it written that you are required to bring two print outs of your squad list. And at least premier events require that officially. Or are you talking about yasb print outs?

Anyway, I agree and that yasb printouts are what I've always done. I always made them in German and English just in case my opponent is more familiar with one or the other. I used to explain interactions in detail and that is just stupid from a competitive point of view. So I stopped doing that. I still offer to answer any question about the list, but that puts the initiative on my opponent to ask something, and that's already a big difference. Similar to your square sheets.

9 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

When you say it's a "disadvantage" for me, what do you mean? Are you speaking relatively? I.e., because I'm providing open information to my opponents proactively, I'm hurting myself?

If I understand correctly we do the same thing, but I believe to understand that I'm hurting my chances while doing it and you don't. That's interesting.

The way I see it, knowing or immediately grasping interactions between cards is a crucial part of the game and one part of what makes someone a better player (Quoting Sunzi about "know yourself and your opponent, and you don't have to fear the outcome of a 1000 battles" as it is the same basic idea). It is IMO also the best argument for list building, as it helps to get to know the different cards and effects. You wouldn't sit your opponent down and talk him through the weaknesses of your list, and what his best approach will be (assuming for a moment your idea was 100% correct). I see that as just some steps further down the same road: you inform your opponent of your list. Explaining interactions in detail was some fewer steps down the road, but in the same direction.

If we don't do that, what is on the other extreme? Probably only showing the ship models and initiatives, with access to card text when necessary. Clearly that is ridiculous.

What is the minimal information you should provide? I used to believe it is the YASB printout where the card text is easily accessible because that is already open information. But apparently FFG disagrees and thinks initiative, card names and points cost is acceptable. The handwritten sheet is nothing different, just less legible. I strongly dislike this development. YASB was the dominating format, and full text as standard setting was the most common type of printout around here. I see the minimal information from the official squadbuilder as escalation that puts me and my opponent on unequal grounds. He doesn't provide me with the information in a convenient way and I will more often than not rely on my memory. I do provide him with the information in a convenient way and he has then an easier time understanding my list and card interactions, which makes it easier. Relatively, that puts him at an advantage over me, and accordingly myself at a disadvantage.

Now, when I put my English printout into the hands of a French guy who barely spoke English then I wasn't so far from the ridiculous example above with only providing initiative and models. Similarly, this Friday-Sunday when I will be in Poland, I will maybe get the full printout in Polish and will have to rely on my memory. I mean, I personally won't and will use Launchbay for that exact reason, but I bet you that dozens if not hundreds out of the announced 380 players will run into the problem that they will have to rely on their memory to understand the list in front of them. Clearly that is a disadvantage compared to getting the names, and a larger disadvantage compared to getting the card text right in front of you?

Quote

Wait, you have to have an extra print out at events, right? Or is that just a local rule? Our events always have it written that you are required to bring two print outs of your squad list. And at least premier events require that officially. Or are you talking about yasb print outs?

Yes, I think that's either an official requirement or a very common one. But the purpose of that requirement isn't to provide it to your opponent. As far as I'm aware, all you must provide to an opponent is your cards, making it obvious which upgrades are one which ships. But yes, I am talking about YASB, and I always bring a list for my opponents. I do things like number the ships in ink, highlighted, to match the ID tokens I'm using. My intent is that my opponent easily have immediate and any-time access to all the open information about my list.

Quote

If I understand correctly we do the same thing, but I believe to understand that I'm hurting my chances while doing it and you don't. That's interesting.

This is slowly changing, but gamers are still shyer and less (actual) conflict-averse than non-gamers. In recognition of that, I am never consciously and affirmatively putting the onus on my opponent to have to ask me anything that's truly open information. My opponent should not have to ask me what the text of a card is, or how much Hull my ships have left, or what half-point values are and how close they are to reaching them. One way or another, IMO, that information should be available to the player across from me without having to ask or move into someone else's personal space. So I provide a printout with full text, I announce how much Shield/Hull my ships have left when I've taken damage, and I announce when they've scored half points -- or lost it again due to regen -- and how many points that is.

This is differentiated quite easily from explaining interactions. (Which, incidentally, is something I offer to do if any player tells me he or she is new-ish to the game, but that's a step further than I expect or hope from most players.) As you point out, knowing how the upgrades -- and the pilots -- work together is absolutely part of the skill of the game. Relying on someone being even a tiny bit shy and hesitant to ask how much Hull is left on my Shield-upgraded Boba Fett -- no matter how small the likelihood it would matter -- is not part of the skill of the game. It's more relying on a sort of passive intimidation. Now, as you're all too well aware, I'm a big guy, so maybe I'm just reflecting a certain amount of personal experience here. Maybe my opponents feel that way just because of my size and appearance, but I don't really think so.

Is it legal to nevertheless adopt an attitude of "well, they're competing, they need to get over that; I'm going to make them overcome their hesitation to ask, because it gives me an advantage"? It is legal. Absolutely. It's just not my style, and never will be. When I was young, I was shy, and awkward, and embarrassed to admit I didn't know things ... some people were kind and empathetic about it. Some people weren't. I appreciated the first sort.

I'm not a f#%in' saint, though. Far from it. There are benefits to me, too (besides just feeling like I'm doing at least the minimum I can to be a decent X-Wing human). First, it very often saves time, and I have lost far more games because of inadequate time than I have because of big mistakes I've made. Second, I'm not a great multi-tasker. I don't mind when people talk to me during games -- even during planning or other heavy decision-making times -- but it does distract me ... so if it happens less frequently, because I'm affirmatively providing open information, that's great.

I like to compete. I'm a competitive person. I hate losing. I play poker for fairly significant real-money stakes, and I play X-Wing, and I take both seriously. When I'm playing people I know well in X-Wing, I'm quite willing to engage in misleading mind-games, such as fabricating a tell that I'm moving my ships in a certain way. When I'm playing people I know and don't like in poker, I'll engage in certain legal (and ethical ... probably) behaviors that I know will tilt them. But I don't take either game so seriously that I'm not willing to affirmatively consider the possible circumstances of my opponents. (You may think my attitude toward X-Wing is a little self-righteous, but compare it to the fact that I have left incredible juicy poker tables because I knew for a fact that a bad player could not afford to pay his or her mortgage if he or she lost. It's not necessarily that I would end up with their money, and it's not even that my leaving would keep them from losing it. It's just that money -- or X-Wing loot and whatever prestige -- is just not worth sacrificing certain things. In my opinion.)

One of the things that I realized very early on in X-Wing (I've been playing since 2012, and competing at the Regionals level since 2014) is that it's actually pretty rare to find people in the game who are pretty close to where I'm in in this respect. I've actually seen people who have been similarly concerned about how we play the game as much as how well we play the game driven from the game. (Doug Kinney is probably the highest profile example, but there are many.) My co-hosts, Vince and Drew, are both good guys, but neither comes close to where I'm at. I get that. I do. But you've listened to us for a while now, and we've had many exchanges here, so you know that every argument I make about X-Wing is, to some extent, filtered through the lens of "how is this going to affect the non-hyper competitive gamer"? I honestly think that should be of more concern for FFG ... and for competitive players. After all, going the opposite way effectively killed 1E. And while I'm seeing signs that FFG is coming around on this, unfortunately I'm also seeing signs that the competitive player-base is actually moving -- quite consciously and in many cases with palpable defensiveness -- in the other direction.

Wow. Wall of text. Sorry about that.

Thank you for that wall of text, I mean it. It is an interesting topic to me because I am in that dilemma right now, though you might have brought me back. So, thanks for that!
I also think we have some big cultural differences and unspoken assumptions on how things work and what we are talking about:

• my most frequent opportunity to play xwing is at weekend tournaments, we don't have regular (casual) nights. Sometimes we're meeting up for practice games and that includes often a more in-depth discussion of the list before and after the game. My other alternative is vassal where I obviously have the full list in my language of choice at my free disposal, and I can only hope every opponent does the same. But that point means I'm anyway only talking about tournaments;
• we always hand our opponent the squad list. That's just normal etiquette (and tbh I am very surprised that this seems not to be universally the case) and they keep the list during the game. Though I started to give it back since I enter it into launchbay anyway;
• we frequently encounter lists in different languages, and regularly at international, premier level events. German and English, but also French, Italian, Spanish, and Polish. That puts more importance on memorizing the cards and/or providing your opponent with the card text in a language they understand. I think you might underestimate how big of a problem this is or can be;
• I never said it explicitly, but I had only premier level events in mind when I said I consider not to print a yasb list and use the official squadbuilder instead. And even then I would narrow it further down, as SOS are too fun and beginner friendly. So really, only worlds, the european championship and maybe some grand championship is where I consider to not use YASB;
• There are two parts where the advantage/disadvantage is visible, slightly analogous to Herzberg's two factor theory if you're familiar with that, it's a very useful concept to think about all kinds of situations:
  • I can change a disadvantage to not-disadvantage by using launchbay and get the full card texts in my language of choice myself. I see this as entirely justified and everyone should do that, but I know they don't;
  • I can change a not-advantage to advantage by providing minimal information to my opponent. I see this as questionable at best, and feel uneasy enough to discuss that in walls of texts - already giving me my answer in a way;
• my gripe is that the official squadbuilder doesn't provide the card text or stats, and now I have to decide once more between being right and stupid, or wrong. I'm hurtvery salty about this. And it is not even something that I personally suffer from because of launchbay. In that sense it's interesting that you mention the non-hypercompetitive players because that's who I'm angry for about this mess. My ethical "dilemma" is more me being fed up with the unfair situation.

I 100% agree with you for most tournaments where I will continue to print yasb lists in different languages, and where I proactively inform them of half points thresholds, current points standings, hull values, you name it. At the end of the (small tournament) day I don't care where exactly I place, as long as I got to play my 4 games of X-wing (and as long as I played relatively well myself against hopefully the best my opponent can be - independent of outcome. That includes by the way that I "earn" the win, i.e. not win because my opponent calculated wrong or miscounted the hull value or other silly mistakes). But even there in those small tournaments, the official squadbuilder is now the most common way to present the list. I see that as a huge barrier for newer or less frequent players. I just discussed the topic over dinner with my SO, and she completely lost interest in tournament games where she has to know all the cards or constantly ask because the squad sheet doesn't provide the text. I'd wager she's not alone in this. I fully agree that we should make the game more accessible in general, and I despise the official squadbuilder for the pdf it generates.

But is that still the case for a continental championship?
Playing by the book and cutting every legal corner might be ok there. It's not what I normally do, but I accept it as likely to occur. And it feels unfair that I have to decide between gimping myself and being nice, or not losing an edge and betraying my standards. I exclude obviously new players from that behavior, but I would assume that there are fewer of those at Euros.

However, a maybe good argument against that position from a very practical viewpoint is to consider who I will play against. Those who miss interactions if they only get the names are often not the ones I have to be afraid of. And those who have a field day against me will know my list anyway - whatever I choose. So that part of the problem, me providing my opponent with more or less information, probably does not affect my games. The counter to this is that round 5-6 has people tired and they more easily miss stuff.

For me, the official squadbuilder should provide the entire text on the pdf. It already has the feature to change languages freely, directly adjusting the names. I would also ask FFG to demand from players to keep two copies of their list: one in English and one in the language of the host country (if that language is not English). It seems like a small change that could have a large impact for non-hypercompetitive players. And players should not get into the situation where there is a decision between gaining an edge vs making the game accessible to newer/less frequent players.

Also sorry, somehow it exploded.

On a completely different note, the episode was fantastic! Not just Ryan, but you three guys as well. Maybe it was him, maybe the topics, maybe a mix, but it felt as if something in this episode brought out the best of all four of you!

Man, that's a fantastic response, @GreenDragoon. I want to respond to a huge amount of it, but (1) it would most be along the lines of, "I know exactly what you mean," and " ... Right?"

Instead I will say that your SO's response and your observation about "the players to be worried about, and whether I should betray my own standards and not help them" ... those are just great, great things to bring up. Those are the kinds of things that we should all be thinking about, and the level of the tournament just should not even enter into it, IMO.

Also, thanks for the kind words. IMO, Drew is kinda the bellwether of a show for us. Vince has his strengths, and I have mine, and he and I could argue amiably for days ... but if Drew is excited and having fun during a show, it turns out to be a good show. It's like he can instinctively tell.

@GreenDragoon reading through your post something occurred to me. By not having the card text on the printout sheets the squad builder is in effect violating the open information requirement for tournaments due to placing too much onus on the player to not deceive their opponent, when asked, as to what the cards do thanks to both the current and increasing number of different abilities as well as not accounting for the multiple primary languages in many areas that tournaments are held. While I'm sure most players have no problem with being forthright and helpful in this regard, there is that relative few who will look at this gleefully as an opportunity to gain a technically illegal edge over an opponent and present the information as confusingly or misleadingly as possible.

Maybe, unless explicitly prohibited by the organizers, try and keep doing what you have been via YASB printouts even at the higher level tournaments until FFG wakes up to this problem mitigates it. Hopefully it catches on.

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Maybe, unless explicitly prohibited by the organizers, try and keep doing what you have been via YASB printouts even at the higher level tournaments until FFG wakes up to this problem mitigates it. Hopefully it catches on.

I agree. I carry both printouts, but YASB is the one I offer first, no question. It's just better for the game and players.