Well your not supposed to keep them on your ship cards but it is supposed to be on the board. Lets say you fiddled with it a little forgot to place it and it is in-between two moves? A lot more ambitiousness if you try to go what is on the dial still.

Yeah but you may not know where that dial is, on the side picked up by your neighbor still in your hand etc. It is supposed to be on the board so there is no tampering, so the stressed and red case and letting your opponent set makes most sense as there is precedent to handle dial erros.

I won't like the post Sean as I don't like the fact that you feel you have to be punished before the mob for what I believe (rightly or wrongly) was an honest, non malicious mistake brought forth from a Fly Casual attitude that the X-Wing community is known for. I agree, you were in the wrong. End of sentence. I understand your choice and respect you for it, but I am not happy that you feel the need to impose this punishment upon yourself for the good image of the game, the NOVA podcast and yourself. Kris Agreed, I think people have thrown around the word 'cheating' carelessly. Difference is the intent. I would not call this cheating but a mistake. Cheat:= to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.

They look nice but I would be very concerned as it looks like a blatant unlicensed product you are selling as is. Selling for profit is a big big no no.

No, that is stupid.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific. So the question is, what is the argument exactly? "The fundamental underlying problem is that many times a player who is CLEARLY going to lose if the game does not go to time, can instead be guaranteed a win if the clock runs out. " First of all, I am not sure this is a underlying problem that comes up "many" times. You gave one very specific example and this issue is driving your entire argument. The only tangible thing I see in this very selective example with the decimator is to "to decrease slow-play cheating', or 'more accurately represent the board state" in an unfinished game. However, I and several other feel this is simply an unsubstantiated ascertain that we have a wide spread problem of slow play cheating or the real winners in a close game are getting the shaft. I dont think this happens many times (pure ascertain from me but I am not arguing for a change) but please cite some tangible evidence especially with all of the data you have access to. I am not sure your assumption one player will ever "clearly" lose is accurate either, especially in a dice game where you just dont know until the last ship is removed and no one can reliably predict a winner in an unfinished game. This concern is dismissed with a counter point that an unfinished game should not have a winner and loser? I have noticed you are extremely dismissive of others points as 'circular logic' but instead provide a view without demonstrating there is a pervasive problem. As the partial points scoring did a significant change to the 2 ship meta which people can understand. Here, the status quo is not arguing for a change so it is on you to show why the changes should occur and how the current scoring is unfair. I am sure everyone here is all ears.

Precisely a good example, scoring incentives do affect rational decisions.

This I think where you are sure making a lot of assumptions (incorrect) about the game. Point 1: Rounds are discrete entities and must be finished even if time is called. So suggesting, well, one would eventually win in a later round is not very convincing to most people. One round later? 2 rounds later? 3? How do you know you would win? There is a chance you would win (Maybe a really good chance) but it is only a chance. Point 2: If you are ahead in the current scoring system, you are ahead in the scoring. Rationalizing that you should be behind based on undetermined future events is folly. The simple fact is you are not losing but winning. It is like a NFL team who is up by 2 but lost it's star QB late in the 4th. Sure, with another quarter, the other team would probably win.... but that is not how the rules are. Or a team with a chance for the go ahead score on the 1 yard line runs out of time. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/college/on_campus/2015/10/time_runs_out_on_boston_college_in_heartbreaking_defeat .

The discussion is not for everyone but rest assured that we get back to more familiar territory after the flight deck with some good talk about the Mist Hunter and then the rest of The Force Awakens. Kris It was how it was conducted that bothered me. I'll eventually get bored and go back to it I'm sure. Seemed lively to me where there were good points to be made and then defended. Points are only valid if they can stand up or get refined if they can stand up criticism. Much better than everyone saying 'I agree' to each other.

They have in fact accomplished the exact opposite. Players that would clearly lose if the game did not go to time are essentially required to slow play and/or run away under the following circumstances: a draw scenario ahead on points as scored by the rules even though they are clearly losing Scoring MoV proportional to each ship's remaining health for unfinished games would fix both of these issues at the expense of taking an extra 30-60 seconds to score the game. A slower player dictates the pace of a game, not a faster player. You can only play as fast as your opponent places dials and engages. I ran into this several times at Worlds. Edit: Citation please. P.S. You can't tie in elimination because it's elimination and somebody needs to advance. Example, football allows for draws in the regular season but not in the playoffs. Double edit. Another citation please. It doesn't always work that way. Actually it usually doesn't work that way. FWIW I finished #20 at Worlds. Interesting, idea on partial points, I would consider that if it was practical. But, I think were splitting hairs on the value of a tie. You believe a perfect 50/50 is fairest because this is how all other sports handle this. I dont mind the bias towards less points personally in encourage more aggressive play, but either way we are talking about a 0.5 difference, not anything to get too bent over either way. And, if I missed a cut by 0.5 points I am sure I can find plenty of reasons why I didnt make it rather than blaming an unfair scoring system. Swiss tournament pairing is in a way determining if you are advancing or not. A winner is playing another winner. If your game ends in a tie you are not advancing so truly it seems reasonable to handle tie's differently than a regular schedule of games as in a regular season. I not sure sure what you want me to cite and these are my opinions. Congrats on your placing, and I agree that passive play, running etc. has it place and will win you games but my point if Xwing is best (Subjective) when 2 players are going at it and shooting at each other each round and not just playing a chicken or cat and mouse game or perhaps playing for a tie. There is EXTRA incentive to go for the win if you can. Again, this is my opinion and you are free to disagree that other ways to play can be just as fun or be in fact better. It really is a personal experience to say whether something is fun or not. But, just perusing the forum and you can for all of the negative play experiences with slow play and running. This was one reason why they added partial points scoring so my opinions may be closer to why explaining why it is as it is.

But, obviously, Xwing is not like other sports. When 2 players are tied and they get half points, and they can be more inclined to keep the tie and play more passive. The designers are intentionally punishing passive play and they want the game to be played aggressively. This is where the question truly is at, is this fair? Of note any question about fairness is arbitrary but here I would agree with the 'punishment' because passive play and conservative play is part of the game, but I believe Xwing plays 'best' when risks are taken. So, we can distinguish this game from soccer, tennis football, just by the design of how it plays and accept rules that push players in a direction- take more risks, go for the win, roll some dice, etc. Looking at a single game, a tie does not tell us anything of value which is why you cant tie in the finals or after the cut. Or can you.... drum roll....

I may have missed this, but exactly why should 2 draws = 1 win? Seems like playing for a tie should be slightly punished (As it is now) in a tourney setting. A full win demonstrates superior skills, luck or whatever, while a draw or modified win doesnt tell or distinguish anything really. And looking at board state is just opening a huge can of worms. Everyone here already knows just how quickly things can change for losing to winning with a bit of luck or a single poor maneuver. It can change in an instant so drawing conclusions from board state is unwise.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/spolicy/ Interest in the way they had to deal with this. There must have been a lot of feedback. Basically they said, dont come back.

Fizz literally knows everything about this game.

Blah bad news, I rather they take plenty of time to get it right <cough> Imperial assault <cough> and let us bask in the glow in Wave 2 for a good long while.

I'd suggest starting by researching the growing middle class of China, their increased demand for luxuries, and the rising cost of labor in China. WHoa whoa, as the manufacturing and distributing experienced financial expert suggests, I now need to wikipedia the rising costs in China and to draw the conclusion it costs FF more money to make Xwings which is in part why then are cutting distributors? Humm that is quite interesting way to prove any of your points.

Because I used to work at the distributors you're arguing over, and now work for a manufacturing company. Perfect, with your prior CFO experience, means you must already understand this. Well please care to enlighten us about the costs then?

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.No, I've gone over that as well in all my previous posts.If the online stores devalue the cost of the product online, FFGs margin takes a hit as material and labor costs go up. If the online stores artificially set the price at 8 dollars, FFG loses the ability to set costs at an appropriate level in the future. Just because this move helps retailers, doesn't exclude this from being about FFGs rising cost to manufacture the game. Both can be true. Except in the interview, where this whole discussion started, explicitly the CEO said it was to help the game-stores in the interview. Reread the interview maybe? Your just guessing that prices have gone up over time and labor costs. Your evidence? Or is this just a guess? In fact, I bet the opposite is true, as they are more efficient and making products now than in 2012. They even opened up a second factory bud and are scaling up production which CUT costs.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable. You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

This comment makes zero sense. But, on your prior post, we are not talking about fans such as yourself... As shown with your fleet, where they can package a space turd and slap Star Wars on it and you will buy (Don't worry Ill probably buy it too); we are talking about the people and sales at the margin. Where an Android player might say, "naw ill skip", of an Xwing player might check out the snazzy new GOT card game or see Fury of Dracula and decide against buying it. That is where the discussion is aimed, not the hard core folks.

Just seems even stranger that people feel compelled to complain about the complainers.

The truth of the matter is, at the margin there will simply be less demand if the price is higher appreciably as we can see some people do factor in the cheaper costs online a an important consideration. This is simple economics 101, and a gross population effect; the higher the price, people who are on the fence are less likely to buy- they might buy one expansion instead of 2 or limit which ones to purchase rather than get everything. Or perhaps, the cross game spill over demand might take the hit- maybe someone who might have tried out another game like Armada might not. Maybe FF thinks there is plenty of demand and simply dont mind losing some sales. It might be a negligible effect, but If the inventory starts pilling up then the tune will probably change very quickly. I personally think, the low entry costs are what is causing super rapid growth and wouldnt mess with it. Strong gross sales cures all ills in general, but maybe they just cant keep up.

Actually, errata-ing the cost of cards is a TERRIBLE way to fix things. Like Boba Rick mentions, casual players will either know about changes and use them, or not and it won't effect them much however a change is implemented, but for someone who wants to go to a tournament, if you show up at a tournament and are told the abilities of the figures in your list have changed without you knowing about it, that sucks, but you can adapt, you can still play and have fun. If you show up at a tournament and are told the point cost of the figures in your list have changed without you knowing about it, you can't play. Your entire list needs to be rebuilt, which you may not have time for. You drove however far (I've heard of people driving for an hour to get to local store tourneys) just to watch other people having fun. And that will happen most every time someone goes to a tournament for the first time. Sounds like a more terrible idea to have players figure out the new referring to sheets and FAQs checking costs and rule changes during the heat of battle vs just removing a group an officer at 2 at the start of the tourney- but your good for the rest of the day. Imagine if novice player 1 plays novice player 2. But plays veteran 1 in game 2, another novice in game 3 etc.

Well, you run into a lot more logistic issues with changes like this. First of all, future buyers will have the correction? Says who? It for one is at least a 6 month production run. Why not just limit it to 2 groups like I said?