The feeling you get when playing against the "I am winning acording to the rules, so I'm going to run away now, come and get me" stategy is similar to the feeling you get when you hurry up to catch an elevator when the doors are closing, and there is plenty of room on board, and the person on board looks you in the eyes as he does not hold the door for you .

Yes, he technically has done nothing wrong because you can catch the next one, but you still think, "D*ck."

Why should a player be expected to engage an enemy squadron on their terms instead of on his own? As I asked above is the Y-wing player a d*ick for bringing a squadron specifically designed to limit or remove maneuvers out from the equation of the game?

I only play casually, which means if someone did that to me I'd be able to shake his hand and say "good game" just to end it early.

I play for fun, this game would not have been. I'd kick myself for picking a bad list and learn from that, so the blame would be on me for creating the situation. Its just the prolonging of the inevitable would have been frustrating for me.

I understand it as follows:

- The opponent played in such a way to force OP to drive himself into massed guns if they were to engage.

- The OP played in such a way to force the opponent to split up if they were to engage.

As far as play style is concerned, I see neither player as being worse that the other. Both have effectively said "This is how I want to engage, and I refuse to engage you in any other way." and this has lead to a game where neither player engaged. The opponent can hardly then say "You refused to engage me on my terms, and I refused to engage you on your terms, so you're the person in the wrong!!!"

I think the two main points are:

(1) This is probably not a viable strategy vs. a good player or a good squad.

(2) Is the game about combat, maneuvering, or both? If it ever becomes a game where maneuvering is so important you don't have to engage very often, you can count me out. I don't like games where I don't have to engage my opponent for the better part of a 60-75 minute round. There are plenty of ways to take advantage of a squads maneuverability that don't rule out combat altogether. Even if it's just you taking all the shots that feels better than no one taking any shots.

EDIT: nekomatafuyu makes a good point. Unfortunately we are only hearing one side of the story. If the opponent did have a real option (even if it wasn't a good one) and just chose not to take it, at least part of the fault is theirs. If no matter what the opponent did you could prevent virtually all engagement for all but the first round (even if you had a choice to engage on very good terms for you), it feels more unsportsmanlike.

100% legal while not very sporting. Nothing matters but winning? The ends justify the means? I would rather avoid tournaments than play in a community with that mindset. Last time I checked, this was a game for enjoyment and leisure.

So flip side to this, he should be expected to fly as his opponent want him to, even if that isn't fun for him? Is it unsporting that his opponent bought a list of 4 turrets? 4 ion turrets to be specific. A list specifically designed to take maneuvering out of the game. Isn't that just as unsporting under your view?

I'll admit I don't play in a tournament setting very often because tournaments tend to be very attractive to the WAAC type personality. That's not fun for me. I play XWMG for fun, and when my group plays we tend to stick to the "Fun trumps the Win" mentality.

Objective games and scenario play are great for that BTW.

Im not saying that either list's strategy is wrong or d*ckish to play, what I am saying is that when I can see my opponent is not having fun, I will do my best to make it fun.

That does not mean intentionally doing stupid things or willfully making it easy for them. What I mean is encourage them whan they do something good and suggest alternatives to what is obviously not working, and what not. I often offer to play their list against mine and demonstrate what they could have done, and if it genuinly is a crappy list, what they can change to make it better.

Similar to playing both factions, by playing in those crappy situations, it also helps make me a better player at the same time.

The best way to improve at any game is to play against the best. I feel that the best need to impart the knowledge that made them the best onto those who are less skilled, and in return the less skilled will then challenge them to adapt to stay on top, and the cycle continues.

Thats me and YMMV.

I understand it as follows:

- The opponent played in such a way to force OP to drive himself into massed guns if they were to engage.

- The OP played in such a way to force the opponent to split up if they were to engage.

As far as play style is concerned, I see neither player as being worse that the other. Both have effectively said "This is how I want to engage, and I refuse to engage you in any other way." and this has lead to a game where neither player engaged. The opponent can hardly then say "You refused to engage me on my terms, and I refused to engage you on your terms, so you're the person in the wrong!!!"

The OP still had a missile, which he at least could have attempted to loose. Also, if you're a squad of A-wings against range 1-2 ion turrets, don't you at least try to pick off some Y-wings with 1 agility at range 3?

I think if you utilize a different strategy because there is a time limit than you would if there were no time limit yyou're being at least a little unsportsmanlike.

I might get angry at the table against someone doing this, but you played to your strengths. He didn't adjust his strategy to improve his chances.

Well played sir. You had a strategy and it worked. Those that think this is a "jerk move" or is unsportsmanlike just don't like that you're forcing them to play outside of their play style. They are truly the ones with an unsportsman attitude. I personally would have broken up my remaining Ys and forced a fight. Champions adopt to a situation.

Keep doing what you do!

The loss is definitely on his head not yours.

I'd like to encourage the OP to try and find ways to stay engaged in the combat, even while dancing around. When you break off combat entirely, the game becomes pointless. With A-wings, it would've been just as easy to fly around, taking pot shots at your opponent while leaving him almost nothing to shoot back at.

Heck, the likelihood that he lands an ion on you is slim, doing it more than once is almost nill. You have every advantage at that point, and while it's not against the rules, it's just rude to completely disengage from the game.

Other options would include playing that style for a round or two and then saying 'Listen, I've got the more nimble ships here, and you're very unlikely to land a shot. How about you concede the win, and we just joust this thing out to the end?' At this point you've noted your strength and his weakness and given him the out, at that point if he turns you down, feel free to fly laps around the board at your leisure.

If ships are just running away I can't imagine either player having any fun. Then again, I've never ended a game on time. Casually my opponents and I always play until the last ship explodes, and competitively the time limit has never been an issue, because I've not fought anyone who ran away to win on a technicality. I'd be quite peeved if someone did this to me to snag a win.

Imo is perfectly within the rules, but it's a cheap tactic.

Reminds me of the day when you would see someone play street fighter, and the player playing Ryu would just do hydokens the entire time, beating the other player.

He won far and square, but would often be called a p*ssy.

Cheap tactics are just that. Cheap. They are within the game limits and legit in my opinion, but I guess it comes down to your personality. I couldn't play like that, because I would feel like

1) I'm using cowardly tactics. Get a bit of a lead and run away

2) We play for fun, and I don't think it would be fun for the other guy. Especially if he doesn't seem to know how to deal with it.

If I was your opponent with what he was playing, I would have split them up a bit and catch you at one side of the board, and ion you out of bounds, or keep you from zipping around, and just blown you to bits.

I'd say your opponent was a little experienced since he was unable to catch you, and again,that seems cheap.

I'd say this tactic wouldn't work to well for most of the other games.

However, this is a tournament, and the objective is to win. I am very competitive so I'd have to say,as long as it's legal, your not trying to run down the clock by taken forever to set your dial and ect, then winning is what matters.

If a player is new, or not finding it very fun, then maybe they shouldnt play in tournaments,and play more casual/friendly games.

In a tournament setting, players are there to win prizes. Imo that prizes are nice, and kind of rare, winning is what matters, not if the other person is having fun.

Like I said, maybe the tournament scene is not for them

Well played sir. You had a strategy and it worked. Those that think this is a "jerk move" or is unsportsmanlike just don't like that you're forcing them to play outside of their play style. They are truly the ones with an unsportsman attitude. I personally would have broken up my remaining Ys and forced a fight. Champions adopt to a situation.

Keep doing what you do!

Players don't have to play in tournaments.there is lots of casual players. Leagues and other friendly environment they players can play in.

If your going to a tournament, then expect to see the worse. So long as the player is playing by the rules, and is being a good sport, not doing things like running down the clock, and other bad sportsmanship like conduct then all is fair.

Some people have to travel a ways to get to some tournament. The prizes that you can win at very nice. I mean look at what they go for on ebay. They are not mass produced,so again my opinion is the prizes are well worth it, and I'd like to have them for my own use. I'm not going to go to a tournament and expect players to play nice.

Look at the hockey play offs. They don't lay nice come play off series.

You see alotof more hard hits, and some very cheap moves, which in some cases are against the rules but they do what they do to win the play offs.

In a tournament so long as all rules are followed, then nothing can be said or done.

Like someone else mentioned. Learn to adapt

adapt. Thats what the best do, and those who dont learn to adapt, get weeded out pretty fast

My take on it is this:

Running away for the last 5-10 minutes to secure yourself a win - perfectly fine and wouldn't bother me at all

Running away for almost the entire game to secure the win - while legit, it is pretty lame and cheap

I wouldn't call it d**kish or anything like that, just lame. Did you have much fun flying in circles with no engagement?

Now the the other player also bears some burden as well. If I knew I was losing and you did that to me, i would at least try to split up and attempt to engage your ships. He also did not help the situation.

But whatever, if that is how you want to play it, go ahead. I can't imagine too many people would want to play with you if you use that tactic a lot though.

The loss is definitely on his head not yours.

Get that hoorah semperfi crap out of here. This is a board game, not the military. This wasn't about forcing the opponent to adapt, this was about being a chicken and hiding from the opponent until he gave up. This wasn't about playing the game, this was OP avoiding playing the rest of his game to get a cheap win. Terrible attitude, terrible player, and toxic to the community. Word will get around if he keeps doing it, and people won't play with him anymore unless forced to for an event.

But whatever, if that is how you want to play it, go ahead. I can't imagine too many people would want to play with you if you use that tactic a lot though.

12pts and run is a totally legit strategy, but when the game is entered with the intention of regularly emplying it from the outset does come off as lame.

I would've called you a coward and demanded satisfaction with pistols at dawn the following day.

Well played sir. You had a strategy and it worked. Those that think this is a "jerk move" or is unsportsmanlike just don't like that you're forcing them to play outside of their play style. They are truly the ones with an unsportsman attitude. I personally would have broken up my remaining Ys and forced a fight. Champions adopt to a situation.

Keep doing what you do!

That isn't where the issue lies. It comes from the attitude such a strategy portrays. Play like that will drive people away from the organized game environment and harms the local community. It's about the fact tournaments are still meant to be friendly affairs, and the choice to run away is an antisocial move.

Players don't have to play in tournaments.there is lots of casual players. Leagues and other friendly environment they players can play in.

If your going to a tournament, then expect to see the worse. So long as the player is playing by the rules, and is being a good sport, not doing things like running down the clock, and other bad sportsmanship like conduct then all is fair.

Some people have to travel a ways to get to some tournament. The prizes that you can win at very nice. I mean look at what they go for on ebay. They are not mass produced,so again my opinion is the prizes are well worth it, and I'd like to have them for my own use. I'm not going to go to a tournament and expect players to play nice.

Look at the hockey play offs. They don't pay nice come play off series

And don't kid yourself. The prizes are mediocre and unimportant, not at all worth sacrificing the fun of the game in favor of winning at all costs. They sell for ao much because obsessive completist collectors are common in miniatures games.

The loss is definitely on his head not yours.

Get that hoorah semperfi crap out of here. This is a board game, not the military. This wasn't about forcing the opponent to adapt, this was about being a chicken and hiding from the opponent until he gave up. This wasn't about playing the game, this was OP avoiding playing the rest of his game to get a cheap win. Terrible attitude, terrible player, and toxic to the community. Word will get around if he keeps doing it, and people won't play with him anymore unless forced to for an event.

Dude, take it down a notch.

I have never been in the military, and I know this is a game, so chill out.

I was quoting an line from Heartbreak Ridge staring Clint Eastwood (Thats him in the picture) that pertains to a particular stategy that he employed being called "unfair."

When your opponent does something unexpected, you "Improvise. Overcome. Adapt" instead of crying foul.

Calm down.

As long as the player with more points isn't stalling for time, taking too long to choose his maneuver dials and take his actions, then it is fine.

This strategy actually gives some value to the high-speed maneuvers. Speed 5 maneuvers aren't otherwise terribly useful outside of the initial couple of turns, since almost every game quickly turns into a close quarters furball.

Here's the setup: We were running an informal mini-tournament at the local store. I was running a 4 green list all with PtL and 3 with concussion missiles. I played against a guy running 4 golds with ion turrets and whatever droids he could fit in the list. Initial contact happens and all four of my greens are at range 3 on one of his golds. I took it out with 2 concussion missiles and primary fire from the other two A-wings. Only 2 of his remaining ships have a range 3 shot at me. They knock a total of one shield off of one greens.

At this point, I realized that if I could avoid confronting the remaining Y-Wings in a group, I was pretty much assured of a win. I was already up by enough points for a full win. I knew that my maneuverability could keep me away from their turrets if they all stuck together. The only way my opponent could cover enough board for the turrets to hit me would be if he split the remaining ships apart.

So, I figured my opponent had two choices. He could keep the ships together and I would avoid contact thereby giving me a win when time ran out, or he could split them up in an attempt to engage me and I could pick his ships off one by one.

He chose to keep his ships together. I successfully avoided contact with him for 6 or 7 turns before my opponent decided to concede the game. He was generally gracious about his defeat, but suggested that winning by running away wasn't exactly sportsmanlike.

I felt that since we were playing a strategy game, I had found a perfectly viable strategy to win in the given situation. Obviously, my opponent disagreed.

What do you think?

I think you evaluated a situation where, with the advantage, you were able to put yourself into a position that forced your opponent to make a difficult decision. They either chase you down with their remaining ships individually to cover enough of the board, or spend the rest of the game futilely chasing you down as a group. It's been pointed out plenty of times already. You managed to blast one of the Y-Wings away with minimal damage received on your end, then you exploited the dent in his squadron. There's nothing wrong with playing to your opponent's weakness. If your opponent wanted to get his shots, he has to make that happen. It's ridiculous to think you'd have to make his shots happen for him by putting yourself in range.

I don't think you were being a chicken, a coward or unsportsmanlike for denying your opponent any opportunities because they refused to employ a different strategy to get them. It's not fun to lose or to realize you're facing an uphill battle and have to make a choice between two less than optimal options, but when you start losing ships, that's what happens.

Well played sir. You had a strategy and it worked. Those that think this is a "jerk move" or is unsportsmanlike just don't like that you're forcing them to play outside of their play style. They are truly the ones with an unsportsman attitude. I personally would have broken up my remaining Ys and forced a fight. Champions adopt to a situation.

Keep doing what you do!

That isn't where the issue lies. It comes from the attitude such a strategy portrays. Play like that will drive people away from the organized game environment and harms the local community. It's about the fact tournaments are still meant to be friendly affairs, and the choice to run away is an antisocial move.

Players don't have to play in tournaments.there is lots of casual players. Leagues and other friendly environment they players can play in.

If your going to a tournament, then expect to see the worse. So long as the player is playing by the rules, and is being a good sport, not doing things like running down the clock, and other bad sportsmanship like conduct then all is fair.

Some people have to travel a ways to get to some tournament. The prizes that you can win at very nice. I mean look at what they go for on ebay. They are not mass produced,so again my opinion is the prizes are well worth it, and I'd like to have them for my own use. I'm not going to go to a tournament and expect players to play nice.

Look at the hockey play offs. They don't pay nice come play off series

That kind of mentality doesn't help the community grow. It cuts the community into competitive vs casual. So far the fantastic game balance X-wing posesses has kept this to a minimum, and running for 30 minutes will never be a viable strategy for regular use. But we should be working to avoid cynical competitive mindsets anyway. A divided community is a dying community. Some games have made it past this. Magic has by virtue of a continually rotating schedule of releases and frequent format changes. Most other games die out into tiny niche clusters. I'd hate to see X-wing follow that path.

And don't kid yourself. The prizes are mediocre and unimportant, not at all worth sacrificing the fun of the game in favor of winning at all costs. They sell for ao much because obsessive completist collectors are common in miniatures games.

The game will be fine as it has been all this time. Because people get competitive at tournament I highly doubt you will see numbers dwindle.

I play for fun.

I go to tournaments to win and see how well I can do.

I don't expect, nor will I hold someone hand while playing them, but I'd be more than happy to help them after the game.

The prizes are rare, and I'm one of those people who lives to collect things. I have a ton on vintage star wars and transformers, and I see this as a nice collectors piece s well.

The Op Imo used a cheap tactic I admit,but like it or not you will see this and unfortunately, I'm afraid as the game gets more and more popular so will these tactics

how is it a cheap tactic? In any case, it is his opponent's fault for using such a lousy list that he has no answer to OP's Awings

The play area is only a small 91cm x 91 cm, even if the Awing were to fly the fastest possible maneuver + boost, it would eventually need to slow down and do turns. Furthermore, its not like the Ywing doesn't have a forward 3-4, nor is Engine Upgrade restricted against Ywings. Heck, the Ywing's primary weapons extend out to range 3! Also, there are so many other options out there, his opponent could have used Bwings HLCs or Xwings engine upgrade or even Awings, so it really is his opponent's fault for being unable to come up with an answer.

Aside from X-wing, my main gaming hobby is competitive video games, specifically fighting games (games similar to Street Fighter, for those who are unfamiliar). "Cheap" play, exploiting unintended game design features, and playing "against the spirit of the game and/or the developer's intentions" are concepts that have long been debated and discussed in that community.

I won't go into great detail, but the general conclusion has always been that trying to ban/discourage such things just because some/many players dislike it is a slippery slope. In the case of game-breaking glitches and exploits they have on occasion been banned, usually only if they are on a scale which would essentially make the game unplayable if allowed, and even then the exploit must be obvious for the ban to easily enforceable, but I digress. If you give in to community pressure to discourage some certain type of play that people don't like you set a standard which may encourage some members of the community to attempt to pressure other players to further accept such "house rules" that do not exist within the actual game rules, or attempt to ostracize players based on this notion that "sure it's within the game rules, but you better not do X or we won't like you"

It's a bit trickier in a tabletop game like this, where there is no hard-coded game system to impartially enforce the rules, and even beyond game rules you have other issues like intentional slow play (setting dials, etc) that the game itself does not address and must be left for TOs to determine on a case by case basis.

My opinion on the subject at hand is that it is utterly childish to try and look down on someone or say they are unsportsmanlike just because they chose to use an effective strategy that you don't like for whatever reason. The game is the game, and by entering into a competition, even on a more casual level, you are agreeing to play within the rules of the game. Even if those rules allow styles of play you don't like, they are still the rules. It is not the other player's job to hold your hand and make sure you have fun.

Now, I am not the ultra-competitive type. I am not particularly competitive at all. I don't care that much about winning, I am mainly interested in the continual journey of learning and self-improvement that competitive games like these. I do not like such strategies as dual falcons, falcon fortresses, lambda fortresses, etc., but I would never criticize some or complain if they chose to use them, or refuse to play with them and take my ball and go home. I do think that sportsmanship is important, especially in the tabletop game environment, but using a winning strategy does not somehow make a person unsportsmanlike. Reacting negatively to someone else using a strategy you don't like, however, certainly is.

edit: if anyone is interested in reading more about the subject, David Sirlin wrote a book called Playing to Win that is available to read online: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

I do not agree with the sometimes confrontational way he expresses the ideas but the core concepts are very interesting to think about. I was always on the fence about such concepts as sportsmanship and "honor" in games when I was in high school and first started playing games competitively, and reading this book years later gave me a lot to think about and helped me form a healthier view of competition over the years.