so this thread is meant to be something of a conversation about how you like to win games. I have my own opinions and thoughts on this but I want to make sure that I'm leaving this up as a discussion because otherwise I would just write a blog or something.

anyway, my main question is how do you like to win games? I think this has been talked about in detail on some podcasts etc. but the arguments I continue to see indicate that there's still some discussion that can be had here.

there's a bunch of different ways to win a game. let me attempt to categorize them:

1.) I won a game because I made better moves than my opponent. This seems like a pretty popular one and is probably fine? There's a perspective from which this is boring though. beating up on new players only furthers your understanding of the game so much and the game's more fun when it's even in this regard. the "guessing game" can also be seen to be luck, although there's also really fun probabilistic thinking that's involved in guessing your opponent's moves.

2.) I won a game because my opponent made a bad move. a lot of conversation goes on about how game-ending was the bad move or how competitive was the event at which this took place but ultimately, this one just always feels hollow to me. it's a legitimate way to win though. and it's very hard to discriminate from (1).

3.) I won a game because my opponent doesn't understand math as much as me. this is a variant of (2). this seems to be what people are arguing for by arguing that dice calculators are not to be allowed at competitive events. is memorizing/calculating dice statistics a "skill" that should directly influence games?

4.) I won a game because my opponent didn't build as good of a list as me. about 90% of X-Wing talk everywhere is about listbuilding. does this make it an essential game defining skill? should games be won in the listbuilding step? it's impossible to prevent people from looking up winning lists online - the answer to this in past has been to shame people for "netlisting"... is this acceptable/good/right?

5.) I won a game because my opponent didn't know I was up on points. this is a variant of (2). currently notetaking and apps like Highground aren't tournament legal, so this is evidence that hidden knowledge of who's winning is a win condition. what do you think of this?

6.) I won a game because my opponent got disqualified. I think it feels bad but also kinda good right? like a free win is a free win... I think we need to keep this in mind because I've seen a lot of folks gunning for the DQ and trying to get their opponent caught out on rules stuff. this can range from actual rules to like, repaints, modifications, alt arts, tokens, all those other rules of the tourney regs. Would it feel good if your opponent got DQed for using a resistance pod and a resistance transport at the same time without another pod attached to the transport? is a game where this is a win condition still a game you want to play?

7.) I won because my dice were hotter. luck is luck but I mean like, my actual dice are better. we didn't share dice, and my dice are probably statistically better. did I earn this win by winning other events that gave dice as prizes, and by buying more core sets, and thus having access to more dice that I could use to find the "good ones"?

8.) I won because I knew the rules better. my opponent didn't understand how two of the cards on the table synergize and paid the price. is this fun?

9.) I won because my opponent conceded. Something happened to make the game no longer fun or worthwhile for my opponent to complete the game.

there may well be another way to win that I left out here but these are the big ones I see. and if none of these occur, then pure luck is the only cause of game wins/losses.

So essentially I'm leaving you with no right answer. all of these things are potentially not fun, and pure luck we might as well be flipping a coin. such is life though, we can still have fun with a game where any one win condition might be flawed.

my main questions for you are as follows:

are there other ways to win games that aren't on this list?

are there ways to win on this list that shouldn't happen ever? like should be written out of the game rules or somehow the root cause should be interrogated further and addressed? I understand this is a value judgement and thus subjective but this is kinda my main point I want to get at with this discussion.

Nobody wants an unfun game, so honestly my first priority is “was this a fun game?” I try to keep the atmosphere low key even at worlds. It’s a game. Have fun with it first and foremost. But since this is about winning not where is winning on your priority list....

At a tournament, as long as the game was played with integrity and honesty, a win is a win. I’m not going to be upset if it’s because I did really well or I just got lucky.

That said, I will be trying to take note of “the only reason this worked was luck” and try to apply the lessons I can learn from it just as much as lessons learned from failure.

thanks for the reply. so in your opinion is it ok to win a game based on, say, listbuilding? is this "fun"?

49 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

thanks for the reply. so in your opinion is it ok to win a game based on, say, listbuilding? is this "fun"?

I am going to modify your statement just a hair before responding (there’s a reason, promise )

Unlike in 1.0, I don’t believe there is an instant win/loss based solely on the lists provided. Worlds proves how varied the list building world is right now. There are no match ups where given list X, list Y just stops it without any thought.

That said, there are bad match ups which put you at a disadvantage. There are good match ups that put you at advantage.

In that sense, I have no problem with a win because I happened to have an edge based on what was brought to the table - I assure you, some other game that day I’ll be at disadvantage.

5-9 are all terrible feelings. I like to win any other way.

I like winning with ships I enjoy flying. When I win with "the lists" (if you know what I mean) I usually don't have fun as the game swings my way real hard.

Like flying Obi Wan... I have borrowed him and I do win, but I don't like it; he simply never takes damage and he's obviously flying the prototype of the TIE Interceptor for goodness sake. Anakin in the same chassis is the identical feeling really. They remind me of when I borrowed a Dengar back in its heyday... no thanks. Wins like that make the beer taste worse and the victory seem hollow.

...I have my tea, thanks.

Oh sorry, number 1... and that's it for me.

Cheers!

I agree that fun is at my core of consideration. I’d rather lose by a hair than win by a mile because that usually means It’s been a close game. A problem with this does arise from the fact that people have different perimeters for what is fun. And a simple fact is you can’t make everyone happy. So, I do my best by taking the somewhat counter-intuitive step of first focusing on myself. I fly what I like. When there is something out in the meta that has mechanics or something that negatively impacts my enjoyment, I’ll adjust my lists to make that element less problematic for me, and hopefully wait it out. From there, I don’t field things I’m not happy to play against, and try to present as pleasant an attitude and as much curtesy as I can. I can’t please everyone, but I will try to be polite and accommodating as reasonably possible.

But while this is a main focus, the preferred victory method is actually variable. For the individual points:

1)This is how I prefer victory versus players of similar or higher skill. There have been a few times I pulled something off against opponents I consider of superior skill that surprised them. And, by golly, that’s worth it even if I lose. Winning with outthinking an opponent like that is a really good feeling.

2)Doesn’t feel as good, but it’s part of the game. People make mistakes. Heck, the characters we see in the ships make mistakes too. How it feels is tied to the opponent’s skill level. Lower, it just feels bad. Higher, it is more palatable.

3)I consider the math to be a basic part of strategy. Cost/benefit, “is my two dice attack better used against 3 agi at range 3 or 2 agi at range 2?”, and so on. Some people (like myself) do this math more simplistically, others more technically. But, it all boils down to looking at the situation and trying to make the best decision. So, like option 1.

4)Yes and no to this one. I think list building should require some care. Someone who slapped together a list with redundant and useless upgrades shouldn’t have the same odds of winning as someone who carefully put together a list. I don’t think there should be an auto loss, and I think that pretty much any list that was thoughtfully constructed should have a shot. List building is a skill, but also one that can be exported. I don’t think “netlisting” should be vilified. Let people play what they want.

5)Situational awareness. Part of tactics.

6)Nope. The only way that would feel good for me is if my opponent was being a complete and utter @$$hole, and it wasn’t just a bad day.

7)Been on both ends of this, as well as the “dice went cold” axis. It doesn’t feel great, but it’s also part of the game. Sometimes the Lady smiles, and sometimes she frowns. She is a fickle mistress. And on the point of “the good ones”, I’m somewhat superstitious about dice, but I am not that superstitious.

8)Depends on the opponent. It can actually be kind of funny at and above my level. And also falls under “situational awareness”.

9)Depends on the reason, depends on the mood.

Now, on a separate post, I wanted to address something I think is a potential misconception in option 4. The reason I think list building is discussed so much is because it is the easiest part of the game to discuss. If you want to talk about turn by turn decisions, rock placement, target priority, and so on, you need lots of information. Optimally, visual aids are used. Knowledge of what you are up against, how they set up. And while I’ve seen and had conversations like that, it is some much easier to be like “hey, what do you think of this list?” Also, with list building being an exportable skill, you can very easily draw upon the knowledge and skill of others to refine your ideas. In game decision making is much harder to outsource.

I also think there is a factor of “the honeymoon” stage to list building. When you first put a list together, it can feel like the potential is huge and you are excited about this new thing you want to try out. After a few games, that can dwindle when the potential is realized (even if it is good) and can be not as much fun to talk about the “day to day” of the list.

45 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

I am going to modify your statement just a hair before responding (there’s a reason, promise )

Unlike in 1.0, I don’t believe there is an instant win/loss based solely on the lists provided. Worlds proves how varied the list building world is right now. There are no match ups where given list X, list Y just stops it without any thought.

That said, there are bad match ups which put you at a disadvantage. There are good match ups that put you at advantage.

In that sense, I have no problem with a win because I happened to have an edge based on what was brought to the table - I assure you, some other game that day I’ll be at disadvantage.

winning at start IS still a thing, its just less common. if someone has a dumb list and someone else has some OP bs, its still over unless the OP list is flown badly.

2 hours ago, Kieransi said:

so this thread is meant to be something of a conversation about how you like to win games. I have my own opinions and thoughts on this but I want to make sure that I'm leaving this up as a discussion because otherwise I would just write a blog or something.

anyway, my main question is how do you like to win games? I think this has been talked about in detail on some podcasts etc. but the arguments I continue to see indicate that there's still some discussion that can be had here

My current list is (Darth Vader, Grand Inquisitor & Seventh Sister) not exactly meta, but not to far off either. Every list I play has either Vader/Anakin or Rey in it.

As a “Ace” player per say without regen (Empire most the time) my win condition is destroy my opponents ships, not to run, not to regen I want to win. If late in the match I’m winning big my goal isn’t to run with Vader (I’m Vader I want to destroy you) Am I aggressive not necessarily. I wait for maximum damage attacks then when that is optimal I do so. Then I stay on target until the target is destroyed.

I will add if at the beginning of the game I see an immediate weakness I try and immediately exploit it to my advantage. My style of play is I want to roll more dice than my opponent thus allowing me to hit him more and miss me more.

Most of these are just "the opponent made mistakes and I made less mistakes so I won" which is basically the ideal in any competitive game. Trying to get people DQed over trivial nonsense is lame, but you do need some kind of general rules so this is probably an eternal gray area that you can improve bit by bit but never really get it perfect.

Personally I don't really care all that much about how specifically a game is won or lost and I don't really like to attach too much of an emotional response to the outcome of any game. I definitely feel a bit bad when someone takes a small risk that is generally the "correct" play and then the dice completely fail them, but everyone knows that it can happen at any time.

The most fun I have in Xwing are those intense cat-and-mouse situations where the manuever of even just one ship would result in a completely different game state

I'm generally a very cautious, dice-wary player (wonder why...), So nothing's more fun than trying to puzzle out the "best" possible positioning regardless of my opponent's possible moves.

This is part of why I LOVE rear-arc ships (other than the sheer beauty of the Arc), they give you two completely opposite options to move aggressively or defensively as needed without sacrificing too many dice and therefore falling behind. I also feel this itch obliged by pre-positioning (like decloak or coordinating a boost on Nien so he can red move savely). I wish there was more of that rather than reactive and far simply higher I re-positioning

Anyway, game's like a logic puzzle, but with star wars! Win or lose, the positioning is what makes it fun.

**** green dice

1/2?

I want to win because the dials I set and shots I chose were better than the ones my opponent set and chose. Preferably with a point where I made a wrong choice so I have something to work on improving after the fact.

Accessories.

I think that the best win condition is "I made better decisions than my opponent" - point #1. I think point #2 is completely indistinguishable from point 1 - a player making a "bad move" is just a case of a player making a worse decision than their opponent. In some cases, decisions can be critical enough that a bad one can cost you the game. This isn't about beating down on new players or anything like that (and new players are so unpredictable that sometimes it can be difficult to fly against them). This is just a recognition that this game involves skill, and that's a big part of what makes the game fun.

While I dislike silver bullets or "unbeatable" lists, I do think that list building is part of the decision making process, and I enjoy building lists that can give a competitive edge. I also appreciate that the lower power level in 2.0 means that fewer lists can run rampant over the others.

Most importantly, though, when you build a list and when you get to the game table, you need to have a win condition in mind. How do you ensure you make better decisions than your opponent?

When list building, consider the following:

• What are the threats to my list, and how do I take them out?
• What ships in my list are the most likely targets for my opponent?
• Which ships am I happy to sacrifice, and which do I want to keep alive?
• How can I encourage my opponent to shoot at my less important ships?
• How will my list control my opponent's movement/shooting/actions?

When you get to the table, you consider these questions again in light of your opponent's list. Good players will have already considered these questions in light of common meta lists (Oli had a massive list of meta lists and a 2-3 sentence gameplan for each that he wrote up before worlds).

• What is the most threatening part of my opponent's list, and how will I deal with it? Kill it, avoid it, bump it, or what?
• What part of my list is my opponent looking to kill first, and how do I protect it?
• What part of my list is my opponent most afraid of, and how do I use that fear to influence their decisions?
• What part of my list has my opponent underestimated, and how can I surprise them with that?

These questions should help inform you how your opponent wants to engage, and from there you can decide what to do with the rocks and where to deploy.

I think I'm having a lot of 1,2, 4 and 7(though not because I have a lot of dice, I have a starter and a dice set, so 6/6), I think I've one or two from 8 as well, mainly because I fly a lot of scum jank(the "ah *bleep* all my plans went to *bleep* after you tractored me onto a rock." kind of thing, after I turned their jousting block into a pile-up collision).

PS: I'm the new guy, and most of the locals have been around since 1.0, including the guy with the pile-up collision.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

1.) I won a game because I made better moves than my opponent. This seems like a pretty popular one and is probably fine? There's a perspective from which this is boring though. beating up on new players only furthers your understanding of the game so much and the game's more fun when it's even in this regard. the "guessing game" can also be seen to be luck, although there's also really fun probabilistic thinking that's involved in guessing your opponent's moves.

Ultimately, I agree with @ficklegreendice - I feel like this should be the 'default' way to win. Yes, doing 'dice' better than your opponent is a thing too but I would argue that since movement defines the engagement geometry (the range of attacks, who's in arc, obstruction, and who's had to pull red moves and therefore who gets dice-modifying tokens) then consistently getting better dice efficiency is arguably a subset of this.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

2.) I won a game because my opponent made a bad move. a lot of conversation goes on about how game-ending was the bad move or how competitive was the event at which this took place but ultimately, this one just always feels hollow to me. it's a legitimate way to win though. and it's very hard to discriminate from (1).

It is. But whilst 'better' and 'worse' across several turns is a relative term, a lot of games hinge on the "where the 8*!?!?!? did she come from!?!?" moment or the "oh, 8?*?*?*!!!!" as you clip a rock by the tiniest millimetre...so can't boost....so the next ship collides and gets no action.....and in turn blocks the third ship's movement landing him on a proximity mine.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

3.) I won a game because my opponent doesn't understand math as much as me. this is a variant of (2). this seems to be what people are arguing for by arguing that dice calculators are not to be allowed at competitive events. is memorizing/calculating dice statistics a "skill" that should directly influence games?

Making decisions on who to engage is important. Whether your decision is calculated or instinctual, they matter. Sitting down with a calculator before every shot verges into wasting time, though, and more importantly is an 'artificial aid' - why is artificially calculated probabilities any more acceptable than an app which works out movement positions rather than leaving you eyeballing them?

Also, since 'better' and 'worse' shots with differing probabilities come from engagement geometry, I would further argue that much of the time it's a subset of (1) - very rarely are there that many options on who to engage at that are really worth taking.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

4.) I won a game because my opponent didn't build as good of a list as me. about 90% of X-Wing talk everywhere is about listbuilding. does this make it an essential game defining skill? should games be won in the listbuilding step? it's impossible to prevent people from looking up winning lists online - the answer to this in past has been to shame people for "netlisting"... is this acceptable/good/right?

I don't think it's the only way to win - but I accept you can potentially 'lose' with a really foolish one-dimensional list and a bad case of scissors-paper-stone matchups. But I agree with @SabineKey - Isuspect it gets discussed so much because it's the easiest thing to talk about on a purely text forum!

I agree some lists are better than others. But I genuinely think a given list can engage most enemy lists fairly well if you have thought in advance about a plan on how to do so (for general archetypes, at least). The big issue is when a player is so locked into how they fly a list that they can't fly it a different way to adapt.

Taking a heavy swarm of Black Squadron Scout TIE/sk, for example, against some opponents you want to fly them like fast jousters - a tight block of 15 dice to pummel a big ship with eight-rounds-rapid. In others you need to fly in a wide arc to catch a manoeuvrable foe, and against swarms you almost want to fly them independently because higher initiative (not much higher, but still higher!), ailerons and predator means you've got an entire squad of wannabee Soontir Fels.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

5.) I won a game because my opponent didn't know I was up on points. this is a variant of (2). currently notetaking and apps like Highground aren't tournament legal, so this is evidence that hidden knowledge of who's winning is a win condition. what do you think of this?

It's not 'hidden' knowledge so much as not paying attention, though. You're perfectly at liberty to check the 'public' knowledge of the points cost of damaged or destroyed ships at any time. Asking/checking the points values of each enemy ship is not unreasonable, and not knowing where you are in points is ultimately akin to forgetting that a ship has an upgrade like contraband cybernetics or inertial dampeners and thinking you've accounted for all the possible places it could move to.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

6.) I won a game because my opponent got disqualified. I think it feels bad but also kinda good right? like a free win is a free win... I think we need to keep this in mind because I've seen a lot of folks gunning for the DQ and trying to get their opponent caught out on rules stuff. this can range from actual rules to like, repaints, modifications, alt arts, tokens, all those other rules of the tourney regs. Would it feel good if your opponent got DQed for using a resistance pod and a resistance transport at the same time without another pod attached to the transport? is a game where this is a win condition still a game you want to play?

If they're disqualified because they're knowingly and actively breaking the rules, fine. Kick them out and enjoy the free win. If you're actively trying to get them disqualified to avoid having to play the game..... I can't say I think much of your concept of sportsmanship. Yes, technically having things like third party art cards is an issue if you don't have a 'proper' one, but in every event I've been to people are happy to lend out upgrade cards as needed to those who lack them.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

7.) I won because my dice were hotter. luck is luck but I mean like, my actual dice are better. we didn't share dice, and my dice are probably statistically better. did I earn this win by winning other events that gave dice as prizes, and by buying more core sets, and thus having access to more dice that I could use to find the "good ones"?

No. Because knowingly using a statistically better set of dice is not gaming the system, not playing the game. This is why I'm generally in favour of sharing one set of dice even if we both have enough. Plus it means there's never any question when clearing up over whose are whose.

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

8.) I won because I knew the rules better. my opponent didn't understand how two of the cards on the table synergize and paid the price. is this fun?

There are often little 'exploits' a given rule allows, and I guess that I'm okay with it. As long as your opponent knew the rules, it's not your fault if they didn't think through the consequences of the rules. Stuff like giving Vader passive sensors to react 'after' a second player Initiative 6 pilot, or 'skin dancing' a TIE striker through debris or gas clouds with its ailerons, for example. I would say a fair game requires you to ensure your opponent knows what you have , especially since (for the sake of argument) they may not have seen a specific pilot on the table before. It doesn't require you to explain what you plan to do with it .

17 hours ago, Kieransi said:

9.) I won because my opponent conceded. Something happened to make the game no longer fun or worthwhile for my opponent to complete the game.

Kind of sad but it happens - especially in local store games where 'last bus syndrome' hits later in the evening. I very rarely concede games, but I can understand that if there's absolutely no possible way for the game's result to change and it's going to take ages to play out; I'm not going to force you to play. The game is only worth playing if it's fun, and if you're not enjoying it, that's a good reason to stop.

The only other thing I can think of is @gadwag 's comment: deployment (including obstacles) - you can really skew a game, no matter how well handled subsequently, with a bad deployment.

An apocalyptic cacophony of words, symbols and charges that forms an unfathomable monster of agency stealing bull***t on the last turn, flipping a clear loss into an inevitable win, leaving the opponent stunned, baffled and enraged in equal measure.

This is the stuff dreams are made of.

not really

19 hours ago, Kieransi said:

9.) I won because my opponent conceded. Something happened to make the game no longer fun or worthwhile for my opponent to complete the game.

It's rare for me to have fun in a game that my opponent is not having fun too. The interaction between people is the key factor for fun. Winning is emotionally 'feels good' but is not fun in itself.

Looking back, most of the games I really remember as being fun, were games when my opponent and I are both laughing and enjoying ourselves, during and after the match, regardless of who ultimately won. I have played other games where my opponent sat across from me emotionless or completely disengaged... those have not been fun even if I won.

The quoted line has me questioning the wording of your approach @Kieransi , not for any intentional issues or misdirection, but because it focuses too much on winning equating to fun.

My favorite win is where I can point to one or maybe two events (a lucky range 1 natty, a gamble on a maneuvering decision, a blank out, etc...) and be able to say THAT was the moment where the outcome could’ve gone either way.

Side note: I think that this is generally true of a well balanced game. Luck, skill, builds all effect the outcome, but we should still be in the neighborhood of 50/50 chance.

Ideal Game:

• Chill atmosphere
• Both Lists are Logical. Don't have to be A or S Tier. Just logical.
• Opponent's correct movement choices are not obvious or so numerous that their choice isn't relevant
• Opponent's overall strategy is logical and forces me to make a couple difficult decisions correctly
• Opponent makes few self inflicted errors/mistakes in a given turn. Forced Errors are reasonable.
• Round to round my ability to "predict" an opponents decisions becomes the difference between a Win or Loss
  • Usually indicated by multiple instances of the following:
    • Several Key Blocks
    • Forced Disengagement Rounds or Chases
    • Fully Operational Kill Boxes
    • Re-positionless Arc Dodges
    • Successful Flanks
    • Turns where "escape" routes or dial options are closed off by obstacles
    • Forced K-Turns or Re-positons
• Opponent never once mentions their Dice Results.

Question for everyone:

Does your answer change based on opponent and event? Because I know mine does

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Question for everyone:

Does your answer change based on opponent and event? Because I know mine does

Nope, mine is still accessories.

My win condition to spend 60+ minutes having a good time playing X-Wing.

Even when I lose.