With the new tournament rules, I'm wondering if a pure squint list is now potentially more competitive that it might once have been.

Not aimed at taking out the enemy completely, perhaps, but through picking off the weakest enemy ship as quickly as possible and then flying defensively (avoiding combat completely if I can) for the rest of the round.

Two lists I'm toying with for an event tomorrow:

- Classic 4x Royal Guard with PT

(I see this quoted a lot, but haven't heard much feedback - do people have much success with this?)

- 3 Royal Guard, with PTL, Stealth Device and Shield Upgrade (98pts I think)

(A more defensive, less offensive version of the above)

OR, my previous favourite list (not pure squints, but close):

- TIE Advanced with Darth, Opportunist, Cluster Missiles

- Soontir Fel with PTL

- Carnor Jax with PTL

(High PS and really manouverable).

I know that in the grand scheme of the meta, these builds aren't highly competitive, but they are the type that I enjoy playing.

So...which do you think is best, and do you think the strategy above is a realistic option for smaller, more agile squads these days?

3 ship fleets are unlikely to survive well in the new tournament meta, but I can see the 4 Squints with Push the Limit lists working out well.

Would you rather have 4 Royal Guards, or 3 Saber Squadrons alongside Turr Phennir?

I would be really mad if someone intentionally avoided combat most of the game just to get a win.

I would be really mad if someone intentionally avoided combat most of the game just to get a win.

The O.P. is suggesting to stay in-combat long enough to get the 12 point advantage for a Full Win, followed by a turtle-defense.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to best get an Alpha-Strike fleet to be able to transition into the defensive mode, as that's the other half of the equation in my opinion. Pity that a Green Squadron Pilot with a Concussion Missile and Push the Limit is 26 points :/

However a green squad w/ Deadeye Homing is only 25.

I would be really mad if someone intentionally avoided combat most of the game just to get a win.

Why get mad? Sure, if time wasting was involved, but that's not what I was suggesting at all. And it's hardly a certain win anyway. But it's an interesting way of mixing things up for an enemy: the pressure on them to chase me down assuming I get an early kill turns the tables a bit. Besides, it's clearly a strategy FFG were trying to offer with the change.

I think I'll go with the classic 4xRG list...

Why get mad? Sure, if time wasting was involved, but that's not what I was suggesting at all. And it's hardly a certain win anyway. But it's an interesting way of mixing things up for an enemy: the pressure on them to chase me down assuming I get an early kill turns the tables a bit.

Because you're clearly stalling and trying to reach the time limit before you lose. Here's a simple test: if the TO changed the rules to give you infinite time to finish the match would you still do what you're doing? If so, it's a legitimate defensive strategy. If not, it's slow play and/or stalling and you should be disqualified.

Besides, it's clearly a strategy FFG were trying to offer with the change.

No, FFG is just responding to complaints about earning only modified wins for a 20-30 point lead, which was usually a fairly decisive advantage where the winner would have most likely have won the game if there had been infinite time available. So they changed the threshold to more appropriately fit the definition of a modified win: you're ahead when the clock hits 0:00, but not by so much that you deserve full credit.

I do not think that FFG had any intent of enabling a strategy where you score a few points early and then spend the rest of the match stalling until you can reach the time limit.

Here's a simple test: if the TO changed the rules to give you infinite time to finish the match would you still do what you're doing?

Of course not.

But you realise you're making my point for me, right? That in an infinite time limit scenario there's only one winning condition - no modified wins at all, just total annihilation of the enemy squad.

But in a 75 minute scenario, under the current rules, squads such as these have bugger all chance of winning.

Let me turn your test around, then - if tournament time limits were infinite, would you see only the same builds you see at tournaments now being successful?

I'll answer it for you. See that third squad in my OP (Vader, Jax and Fel)? I regularly win with it in Vassal games and non tournament games at my local store, but almost never in proper tournaments. Why? Because it takes time to outflank and chip away at the enemy - time not available in a typical tournament game.

The change in tournament scoring and the strategy I mentioned at the start (plus skill and luck as always) now gives me a chance at least.

You're being ridiculous (how many double falcon board edge flying players have you heard of being disqualified for such an act?) as well as confusing dodgy player behaviour (taking too long to place dials or move ships etc etc) with a legitimate defensive strategy, given the set winning conditions.

If you can't hunt me down and deal with me in the time available (even assuming I get that early kill untouched), that's your problem - not mine, or the TO's.

For what it's worth, it's also completely in character for a squad of squints to snipe at an enemy, wounding them for a later kill by others - which is what such a scenario could well represent.

Seems to me that's just the strategy I'm talking about, or at least a version thereof. The change to the initiative rule also helps in this regard.

You're being ridiculous (how many double falcon board edge flying players have you heard of being disqualified for such an act?)

I'm sure none have been disqualified, because YT-1300s have a 360* arc and can usually continue to shoot while being evasive. I have nothing against a defense-based plan, I'm objecting to a plan based around avoiding combat entirely . If your only possible route to winning the game involves reaching the time limit then you're just stalling.

as well as confusing dodgy player behaviour (taking too long to place dials or move ships etc etc) with a legitimate defensive strategy, given the set winning conditions.

You don't have a legitimate defensive strategy, you're just stalling and hoping that you reach the time limit before you lose any ships.

If you can't hunt me down and deal with me in the time available (even assuming I get that early kill untouched), that's your problem - not mine, or the TO's.

No, it's the TO's problem too. You're blatantly stalling, and that should get you disqualified. And I seriously doubt you're going to be playing as fast as you possibly can with this list, so you're probably also guilty of slow play. Essentially you're proudly declaring yourself to be the kind of person that nobody wants to play against, and the TO has an obligation to remove you from the event so that you don't ruin everyone else's experience.

Seems to me that's just the strategy I'm talking about, or at least a version thereof. The change to the initiative rule also helps in this regard.

No, that's not what the quote is talking about at all. It means that, for example, you have a bit more freedom to take evade actions and defensive focus instead of target locks and offensive focus, since you won't be penalized for leaving one last crippled ship on the table if you're decisively winning. Nothing in that quote even remotely suggests that FFG is approving of stalling-based strategies where you spend an hour running away and wait for the game to end.

I have nothing against a defense-based plan, I'm objecting to a plan based around avoiding combat entirely .

Playing reasonably quickly is never stalling, no matter how many times you happen to be shooting at your opponent.

I'm continually amazed at how many gamers think blind adrenaline-fueled berserker rage is the only "fair" way to play.

Playing reasonably quickly is never stalling, no matter how many times you happen to be shooting at your opponent.

I'm continually amazed at how many gamers think blind adrenaline-fueled berserker rage is the only "fair" way to play.

Exactly right; thanks for the support!

If my whole strategy depended entirely on avoiding combat, the game would end in a draw.

Obviously you have to engage at least once, the point is that you admit that the goal of your strategy is to reach the time limit before your opponent can kill anything, and that's blatant stalling.

As I've said, it's still a high risk approach to take and unlike a double YT-1300 list (which just sits back and waits me for to come into turret range)

It's not about risk vs. reward, it's about whether or not you're playing the game. Dual YT-1300 has a legitimate path to victory that does not require reaching the time limit. You don't seem to have that, your primary strategy involves running out of time and it would fall apart entirely if the time limit was removed.

Nice attitude. Clearly your argument is based on some negative experiences you've had as opposed to seeing how the change offers different strategies to the game.

No, it's based on your own claims about how you plan to win. Your goal is to reach the time limit, and I don't believe for a moment that you're going to be setting your dials/moving your ships/etc as fast as possible and turning down an easy opportunity to improve your chances of reaching the time limit.

Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to play the game is to pound each into oblivion - and as such, anyone else not playing for a full table wipe should be removed from the event?

No, I'm saying that the way to play the game is to play the game . I've said it before, but I'll say it again:

A legitimate defensive strategy doesn't go all-out on offense. It might be willing to boost out of arc and sacrifice a shot if it means getting out of an enemy ship's arc, or it might take evade and defensive focus actions instead of target lock and offensive focus. However, the end goal is to kill the enemy ships, and the strategy still works just fine if the time limit is removed.

A stalling strategy like yours goes all-out on defense with no real plan to win the game based on the primary objectives. Your primary goal is to reach the time limit with a small lead, and your strategy fails utterly if you don't have a time limit available.

The simple fact is that the time limits in X-Wing are generous enough that most of your matches should be finishing within them. If you're consistently reaching the time limit then you're either deliberately stalling/slow playing, or you seriously need to practice more until you can play at a reasonable pace.

...which, along with careful maneuvering, is exactly what I would be doing. Thanks for making my point again.

No, that's not what you're talking about. Legitimate careful maneuvering involves paying attention to defense while setting up a kill. Your strategy involves flying around the edge of the table for enough turns that you reach the time limit.

Playing reasonably quickly is never stalling, no matter how many times you happen to be shooting at your opponent.

Of course it's stalling. Again, it's a simple test: would you use the same strategy if there was no time limit? If you would, it's a legitimate defensive strategy that happens to not shoot every turn. If you wouldn't, you're stalling.

I'm continually amazed at how many gamers think blind adrenaline-fueled berserker rage is the only "fair" way to play.

Nobody is demanding berserker rage. There's a clear difference between not blindly flying straight into range 1 exchanges every turn and trying to take up as much time as possible without rolling dice so that you can reach the time limit before you lose any ships.

I would see no problem with this tactic. If my build is not good enough to hunt you down then I don't deserve the win. You've already stated that if the opportunity presented itself you would strike again. To me it does not feel like stalling at all and to say so is being presumptuous.

I would be really mad if someone intentionally avoided combat most of the game just to get a win.

The O.P. is suggesting to stay in-combat long enough to get the 12 point advantage for a Full Win, followed by a turtle-defense.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to best get an Alpha-Strike fleet to be able to transition into the defensive mode, as that's the other half of the equation in my opinion. Pity that a Green Squadron Pilot with a Concussion Missile and Push the Limit is 26 points :/

I'm not sure I'd call manoeuvring to avoid being shot a 'turtle-defense'.

Being able to out-maneuver your opponent ≠ stalling.

Finally we see something that really allows fielding squints in tournaments. At the two Store Championships I attended no one but me flew them so it's nice to see a change that gives better room for their playing style.

There are so many assumptions, accusations and just plain incomprehension in this last post that it's getting hard to take you seriously anymore. Where to start?

Yes, that's right. Well done. The problem is that to me that's not stalling . Anything outside of the actual game (such as taking too much time to do your dials, or place/move your ships) is stalling, which is a form of cheating and one I agree should be dealt with.

But for the millionth time, that's not what I'm proposing.

But I get it - it wouldn't matter to you how fast I did my dials or moved my ships, would it? You'd still spit the dummy.

So would arc dodging with interceptors be stalling? Cause if so, that's a dead ship.

The OP is proposing a legitimate, "real world" tactic for a situation that ca be justifiably be called a "realistic" situation. In the "real world", the tactic can be referred to as "Zoom & Boom"- zoom in to attack... then... boom , you're gone. The tactic has been around since the dawn of aerial combat (i.e. World War I) where it was used by forces that either had inferior numbers or superior speed/firepower and inferior maneuverability (ex. SPAD XIIIs vs Fokker D.VIIs).

The XWM game does impart some pretty unrealistic restrictions, like "table edges"- in space, no one can run out of bounds. Time limits can be another but they can also be justified by interpreting them as restrictions due to fuel/oxygen/energy limits, operating range of certain ships or the greater tactical (stuff happening off board... the "Big Picture"... rather than just your little dog fight) situation. Consider the historical example of the mission to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto in WW II- the Allied aircraft were operating at extreme range and had only one shot at their target, there was no time/fuel for any extended dog fighting, it was hit and run.

Given the artificial restriction being confined to a 3' x 3' playing area, his tactic of making a first strike , getting in some kills then trying to avoid contact is very legitimate. It may not seem fun to you but I'm sure that it won't seem very fun for him to be boxed into a corner in space or face a force of turreted ships that have 360-degree fire.

Chris

The strategy is not a good one. Because you will be corralled into combat again. And being completely defensive means you are likely to be in a bad position once they start getting shots on you. As maneuverable as Interceptors are, you won't avoid combat entirely. And the strategy will have to change if the opponent gets the first kill.

So planning a first kill, and then avoid combat for the rest of the game is just a pointless endeavor.

The strategy is not a good one. Because you will be corralled into combat again. And being completely defensive means you are likely to be in a bad position once they start getting shots on you. As maneuverable as Interceptors are, you won't avoid combat entirely. And the strategy will have to change if the opponent gets the first kill.

So planning a first kill, and then avoid combat for the rest of the game is just a pointless endeavor.

Thank you for addressing the point of the thread.

I tend to agree with you, but was just curious to see if anyone thought the odds might be better now.

FWIW, my initial reaction is that this strategy is more valid now. Could not disagree more strongly with the people claiming that flying defensively equates to stalling.

It is certainly a strategy to try.
I do think it works best with an Alpha-Strike fleet, rather than an Interceptor fleet, but that's before factoring in point-cost.

Interesting strategy, but seems to rely on a lot of things going right. I'd love to hear of your results after a handful of rounds.