1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Question for everyone:

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

My answer may change depending on what is actually being asked.

My win condition is generally “go have fun” though some events I’ve had the added goal of “doing well” where “well” is defined by an achievable performance.

The questions asked were more about what method of winning is fun, which my answer will not change to.

51 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Question for everyone:

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

For opponent, yes. With less skilled players, I’ll usually try a more coaching approach to playing. Remind them of triggers and allow missed opportunities to try to help them build the “muscle memory” of playing. On casual nights, I try to have a straight forward list in my kit to use for such opponents.

I don't really think my goals change based on event. It’s more an adjustment of expectation from myself and my opponent. A little kit tourney, things are casual and laid back. Some obvious missed triggers like s-foils are forgiven on both sides and such. But as the size of the event grows, I tend to expect more from both parties. A missed action or trigger is a lost opportunity. Now, to be clear, that standard applies more to me than them. If I’m playing at a System Open, I need to know my $hit. I don’t ask others to play by standards I don’t play by myself.

I like winning by not losing - that's pretty much my ideal win condition

Seriously, though, I tend to consider total obliteration my win condition, even with MOV changes in 2.0. It may be a hangover from 1.0, and I just haven't transitioned mentally to this way of playing (even if it's now over a year old), but I don't consider myself to have "won" unless I've soundly beaten another list, either by taking out the big-points ships to such a degree that I have actually won by points, or by thoroughly knocking it about. Since playing Separatists, though, I've started to care more about MOV, because it's resulted in some narrowly-scraped-out wins.

I think it'll be easier for me to answer in a bit of a roundabout way just in my own words, so bear with me a moment here.

For me to consider a game great:

There has to be a balance to the lists and board, within reason. If the squads feel antithetical to one or the other, it just doesn't feel good. Even if it's in my favor. But if all it is is a slight 'challenge' to one list of the other to fly against the opponent then that feels almost better. Like swords vs swords is good, but daggers vs claymores is interesting and good. Stealth bomber Nukes vs screaming spearmen on horses feels way bad.

The strategy had to matter. Targeting priority, engagement zone, when to retreat, and more are all important decisions. Me making good choices and adapting to yours is good. Both of us trying to recover from bad decisions is also good. But most importantly that means we each need to have the ability to make choices roughly equivalent. If you can take three actions from a long list and I get one from a short list, that's bad. But if you can take two actions, and I can choose to respond with a different two, that feels good.

Math is a brutal reality. Variance will happen. But by and large a major swing should be like a once a game thing. That miracle moment for one of us, that may upset the balance a tad, but ideally you or I shouldn't have needed it. Like a random long obstructed shot that crits is always exiting. Always a loud monkey moment. Flying in circles hoping desperately that you roll and spend a bunch of mods to get perfect, and they must still botch big a very certain way to actually suffer for it? That's way way bad.

And that variance is important for the fun experience of the game. Those are often the big memorable moments, just as much as the one crazy activation sequence that you pulled off on someone or you never saw coming yourself. Or that one millimeter that threw the whole thing off. If that crazy miracle happens to essentially cost us the whole game, that feels rough. But at least I can sorta justify that with 'no plan survives the battlefield', as long as it's super rare. If it's the gambler inside us that this game tickles from time to time, the jackpot has to be rare.

And that I think covers it really. Everything else is flavor.

4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Question for everyone:

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

good question, personally I fight hard to not change my answers. I know this and a variant of win condition (2) has been discussed a lot: what do you do if your opponent accidentally dials a move off the table? do you let them take it back? I personally don't like the "well if this were any other event... but sorry I can't because it's xyz competitive event." my source on this is the latest Krayt episode (I'm mostly same team with @Tlfj200 on this).

Also good point @Janson that is indeed what I was trying to get to. the game is meant to be fun. let me for a moment imagine that I only care about winning. If I tell you I won a star wars pocketmodel tournament you don't care and thus I don't get any adulation or warm fuzzies from it. winning events only matters if people care about the game, and people only care about the game if it's fun, so even if my only reason for playing were to win, fun would have to be my primary prerogative. of course I don't just play to win, just saying even if I did it's in my best interest if everyone's having fun.

personally, it's just not fun if I win and feel like I didn't deserve it or if I lose and feel like it was unfair, and that's sort of the core of where this thread comes from. this is of course ignoring all the wonderful non-competitive alt formats out there, but sadly every single official format has been somewhat competitive so far so the point of the game seems to be intended to be competition.

so getting into @Magnus Grendel 's post, I think that there's a problem more of what's fun than what's legal. Personal example: I once won a game at a hyperspace trial because my opponent didn't know that I could use the lock from passive sensors to link into a rotate on my TIE/SFs and shoot missiles out the back, and boosted all his aces behind me. He called a judge over but the judge ruled that that did work that way, and the aces, predictably, fared poorly. the same occured again at my next trial. and then in a casual tournament. all three times I had very carefully explained the card text before the game started and a judge was called and ruled the same thing. eventually, I just started off every game by explaining the entire rotate lock trick on my SFs before games started because I was so sick of winning games because my opponents didn't see the way all the words worked together. it just wasn't fun to win this way, so I spent extra time explaining what probably counts as a strategy. what does everyone think of this?

it's getting at the core of why we play. some of us (especially thinking of HotAC/RPG players like the shuttle tyderium guys here) play a lot of cooperative formats where there isn't a winner and a loser, but the majority of games, even casual ones and alt formats, have a winning and a losing side. even aces high (before it was official known as furball) has an element of competition and someone has to win it. so if our goal is to have fun with this competition, what does that mean? is it possible to play without wanting to win? and if you do want to win, what's a "fun" way to win?

1 minute ago, Kieransi said:

If I tell you I won a star wars pocketmodel tournament you don't care

I'd absolutely care. I've got a bunch of the danged things I'd try to sell you.

@Kieransi

For the SF missiles question, I think this falls to personal conscience. I don’t blame my opponent if I missed a rules interaction, even an obscure one. However, I’m a big proponent of doing what you feel is right. You didn’t like how it felt when an interaction caught people by surprise, so you made an effort to explain it. You did what you thought was right. Good on ya. Others might not have that concern and I don’t think they’re wrong either. Follow your conscience.

Your second question is, I think, bigger and more far reaching than X-Wing. Competitive games have been a staple of humanity for a long time now. Countless games, sports, even elements of life are based on competition, for better or worse. This makes this question incredibly old, and one I think that doesn’t have a community spanning answer. It’s answered individually. Like I said in a previous post, definitions of “having fun” can vary from person to person. Name a style of list, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen both love and hate for it. Heck, there being a timer for the game is a divisive subject. In the end, I think there is an element that is key to enjoying any game that isn’t about goals or tactics: Attitude. Win or lose, be graceful. Have curtesy for every fellow player. Don’t do to others what you aren’t willing to have done to you. I have been complete dumpstered in some matches, but the attitude and demeanor of my opponentieran helped remind me that win or lose, we were both here for the love of the game.

Now, if I may, I would like to pose another question to you, @Kieransi , and anyone who feels like answering. Is winning and having fun opposing goals or can they coexist?

I don't see how just winning is fun

Winning because of bull dice (i.e ridiculous blank outs despite modifications and good positioning; sustained over multiple consequetive turns) just kinda strikes me as a waste of everyone's time, as ultimately our contribution to the game meant nothing.

A game is more fun when it's tense and close, win or lose. Stomping is just boring

28 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Now, if I may, I would like to pose another question to you, @Kieransi , and anyone who feels like answering. Is winning and having fun opposing goals or can they coexist?

I would say they can absolutely coexist. Personally, I've lost a lot more than I've won. Winning feels good, but I don't lose my enthusiasm for, or have any less fun with, the game if I lose. Consistent losses do tend to bother me, but not so I lose sleep. In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to win is actually part of the fun, but it's not the end goal.

@SabineKey personally, I feel like winning and having fun are definitely linked sometimes, especially when it comes to X-Wing. one can have fun without winning in X-Wing but generally, one needs to feel that the opponent's win was "deserved" then. a worthy opponent and all that.

meanwhile there's the idea that winning is contrary to fun, which is definitely also valid (see: "that guy" and the win at all costs or "WAAC" mentality).

I think it's important to distance the outcome of the game from the perception of fun, but most of the fun in the game also seems to stem from trying to win so you can't really isolate the two and remove one or the other entirely.

I'm sorry that this is kinda hand-wavey but this is just kind of a nuanced issue that I'm not sure I know fully how to address. competition is a core aspect of the game but also breeds a lot of unpleasantness, so I think the answer to "does competition=fun?" isn't a yes or a no.

1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

that is indeed what I was trying to get to. the game is meant to be fun. let me for a moment imagine that I only care about winning. If I tell you I won a star wars pocketmodel tournament you don't care and thus I don't get any adulation or warm fuzzies from it. winning events only matters if people care about the game, and people only care about the game if it's fun, so even if my only reason for playing were to win, fun would have to be my primary prerogative. of course I don't just play to win, just saying even if I did it's in my best interest if everyone's having fun.

To me that answer assumes that you are limited to events where you know most or all people. The question gets more complicated as soon as you have friends that do care whether you won or not, while your opponent is also a complete stranger - or worse, someone you strongly dislike (for good or unjustified reason is secondary).

Another distinction that I'm missing in most answers is between forced and unforced errors. Personally I don't like to win because of unforced errors. The "dialed off the table" definitely belongs here, and nr8 is also a version of that. I've both had and seen many brainfarts, completely moronic spur-of-the-moment decisions that would never pass another second of consideration. To me those are the moments that feels worst, both when winning and losing a game.

4 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

meanwhile there's the idea that winning is contrary to fun, which is definitely also valid (see: "that guy" and the win at all costs or "WAAC" mentality).

This is true. WAAC players are a good example of taking something too far and not having a good attitude. I’ve also encountered examples of the other extreme, where it seems even looking at a ship that did decent in a tournament makes you a WAAC. It all goes back to attitude.

9 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I'm sorry that this is kinda hand-wavey but this is just kind of a nuanced issue that I'm not sure I know fully how to address. competition is a core aspect of the game but also breeds a lot of unpleasantness, so I think the answer to "does competition=fun?" isn't a yes or a no.

Oh, no worries. I completely agree that this isn’t an easy “yes or no” kind of subject. Heck, it might not be a consistent answer even from the same person. There are plenty of games, particularly in the video game sphere, that have competitive modes that I completely ignore for more cooperative modes. Competition isn’t the secret sauce for X-Wing, at least not to me. But I can’t really rule out that it’s not an ingredient.

7 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

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.

This, as a general matter.

Inside the game, the moments I enjoy most are getting off a clutch block or setting ships up for a killbox that my opponent hadn't seen coming.

As I've gotten more games in, I've also come to appreciate the turn 0 placements as well. Sometimes you can infer your opponent's strategy already at that point and bait them into positions where suddenly they don't have good choices anymore.

I also enjoy when an opponent is clearly at about the same skill/execution level as I am.

We’re there sufficient pew pew noises? If yes, win!

13 hours ago, Kieransi said:

I think that there's a problem more of what's fun than what's legal. Personal example: I once won a game at a hyperspace trial because my opponent didn't know that I could use the lock from passive sensors to link into a rotate on my TIE/SFs and shoot missiles out the back, and boosted all his aces behind me. He called a judge over but the judge ruled that that did work that way, and the aces, predictably, fared poorly. the same occured again at my next trial. and then in a casual tournament. all three times I had very carefully explained the card text before the game started and a judge was called and ruled the same thing. eventually, I just started off every game by explaining the entire rotate lock trick on my SFs before games started because I was so sick of winning games because my opponents didn't see the way all the words worked together. it just wasn't fun to win this way, so I spent extra time explaining what probably counts as a strategy. what does everyone think of this?

I have to admit I don't see how it's confusing and absolutely everyone I know went bananas for that option the first time passive sensors was shown off, but if it's really that hard to picture for someone who doesn't know how the TIE/sf operates, maybe. I definitely agree about fun as much as legality.

I guess the acid test is that the judge needed to be called in each case; if, after seeing it done, your average opponent's first response is "That must be illegal! Judge!" as opposed to "You clever little bastard...." then that's probably indicating the bar at which you should be doing more than showing the card; being beaten with a clever trick is one thing but a trick you don't understand after it's been explained is an argument waiting to happen and hence one probably worth talking about before the game.

It's basically in the same way that if your squad has a trick that relies on a particular interpretation of the rules, you'd be wise to check with your TO on the day that their understanding lines up with what you've read on the rules forum here.....

I try to outfly my opponent, but will reflect their moves. If they are playing in the corner, I will try and work out the best approach. I have only ever run away once to win a game. I felt wrong and dirty for doing it. It was as the Aus System Open on the 31st August. My opponent and I were both 4-1 and needed the win to go into the cut the next day. I apologised to him for doing it. His name was Shane Mok from Singapore, awesome opponent and nice guy. I won and went into the next day. Still bothers me the way I won though.

I generally care less about winning than just enjoying a game of X-wing. When I play in tournaments I still try to have this mentality but at the same time am more focused on the winning part of the game. As of late, due to a recent three/four month break from X-wing, my rusty skills have made my win condition this- I have made fewer mistakes than my opponent, either in flying, actions, or targeting decisions.

The topic of explaining your dirty tricks is an interesting one to me. I always try to make sure my opponent is fully cognizant of what I can do, but there is a line on some of the tricksier things which, if you cross it in explanation, you're more or less revealing your strategy. Particularly as it pertains to your approach, which is often all important.

It has to be an in the moment thing, saying what you need to say, without crossing that line or hiding anything particularly dirty. Judging your opponents understanding and revealing only enough to make it fair.

Recently I ran a double Deadman Kihraxz with a perma cloaked Deadman quad and RP-TK on another friendly. That was an awkward squad to try and safely preview for my opponent

Ultimately, it almost had to be a case of saying, yeah, you can rush me to make things difficult and just accepting it. The upgrade list alone would generally be enough to make that clear though, so not a big reveal.

The fun in X Wing for me is the camaraderie. Winning is fun, but if it diminishes the social interactions, it's only reducing the overall fun quota. Have fun 1st, win 2nd.

2 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

The fun in X Wing for me is the camaraderie. Winning is fun, but if it diminishes the social interactions, it's only reducing the overall fun quota. Have fun 1st, win 2nd.

This. I remember - way back when, when first going to store championships - looking rather oddly at a (very good) local player who was explaining how the tiered "store championship gives a bye to a regional championship gives a bye at national championship" and asking "so....you're winning the right to play a game you like less?"