Case in point, does MTG have a rule about how many rounds you are allowd to play before initiating an attack? You know it doesn't.

If you're deliberately taking repetitive actions which don't help you win the game, with the clear intent of reaching the time limit before the game can end, you can expect a slow play penalty. And you're going to get it even if the individual actions are done at a reasonable pace.

Many aspects of X-Wing may be similar to Magic, but not in regards to the situation that the OP describes.

There are ways in Magic to pad out a turn and effectively 'do nothing'. Magic is a far more complex game than X-Wing will ever be. Magic has infinite loops along with other convoluted sequences that can take a while to resolve. Think of the 'Eggs' deck that got nerfed in Modern... each turn would take ages to complete. Magic does have provisions for players to 'advance the game state' and failure to do so may result in warnings.

Flying defensively is not stalling (provided that the player is progressing through the turn sequence at a reasonable pace) and can not be compared to any similar situation to Magic. Every turn the A-Wing player is setting his dial and moving his ship. He is advancing the game state. At some point he will need to hard turn away from a board edge, or K-turn back into play. It is then up to his opponent to capitalise on that window of opportunity to engage. The geometry of the play area ensures that ships must engage in future turns. You can't run forever!

This thread demonstrates why it might be useful for TOs to have access to common definitions and examples of what FFG deem to be (not)/acceptable. It's been debated in other threads about the merit for some kind of FFG 'Judge/TO' program. We can see how easy it is for some opinions to differ about a very simple, valid game tactic of flying defensively for a timed win.

If the OP played at my tournament (with me as a TO) he would be congratulated for good, intelligent flying.

If the OP played at iPeregrine's tournament (with iPeregrine as a TO) he might be DQd for stalling...

There's something not right about that inconsistency.

"A coward you shall not be. Fly Casual you should"

At some point he will need to hard turn away from a board edge, or K-turn back into play. It is then up to his opponent to capitalise on that window of opportunity to engage. The geometry of the play area ensures that ships must engage in future turns. You can't run forever!

Yes, but the point of stalling is that you avoid this problem by deliberately reaching the time limit. This is why I mentioned the "would you still do it if there was no time limit" test: stalling strategies, in the absence of a time limit, are losing strategies. If you don't have a time limit available then eventually you're going to be cornered and forced to engage. You gain nothing by wasting 4-5 turns of flying in empty space instead of taking 1-2 turns to maneuver for a better shot immediately. The "strategy" only works if you know that as long as you play slowly enough the time limit will arrive in 4-5 turns and the game will end before your opponent can reach you. And so, in the absence of a time limit, nobody would bother wasting any effort on such an obviously pointless strategy.

What constitutes "further use"? If I don't immediately rush my opponent, do I get disqualified? Or am I allowed a round or two to prepare a proper angle of attack? Why aren't you ordering my opponent to break formation and try to pin me down?

Legal Use: Up to TO / FFG. Again gets messy, opinions, play styles, experience. I mean after what 3-4 rounds, in range, loss of 1 ship, then ran off entire time? Yes, technical win. Yes, played by the rules. No, not clarified as "unsportsmanlike" Yes, **** move. The scenario for Tournament is "Dogfight" not "Dogflight"

My personal view is, that since the tournament rules add max times and respective victory conditions they belong to the same category as the other framing game conditions like map size, starting areas, asteroids etc, so you can use them actively as well as passively.

The problem with this approach is that those other things have clearly defined limits on how you use them. For example, you can place the asteroids to give yourself an advantage, but only within clear limits on where they can be, who gets to place them, etc. Since this was designed to be part of the game it all works just fine. You can do whatever you like with the asteroids as long as you follow the official rules, and nobody can (justifiably) complain that what you did is unfair.

Time limits, on the other hand, have no such integration into the game. According to the rules there's nothing stopping me from sitting there spinning my dial pointlessly for half an hour without ever attempting to play the game. Or, assuming a TO would use their judgement and ban me, from spending a little longer than strictly necessary setting each dial, but playing with a strategy of generating as many additional turns as possible to give myself lots of those little time-wasting increments. There's no possible way to use the clock as a strategy without running straight into sportsmanship limits that are necessary to have a functioning game.

you point out a generic problem of the tournament system, not one specific to the employed tactic.

In any situation at any point during a game where through a successful attack one side would have the necessary points for a victory if the game would end at that point time becomes a factor for your strategy. The chosen tactic might have highlighted the problem more than others, but it's still an inherent problem.

If I would have designed tournament rules, I probably would have gone more for a rule with time per round per player at least for the movement phase which is the most variable and a max number of rounds or something similar. This would avoid stalling for time in the sense of drawing out your moves without limiting tactics.

So as it is now people/TO/judges have to look out for active stalling, but moving around is not stalling in itself.

...brag about your nonexistent victory.

You know, I'll give you that one. Winning an argument with you isn't much of a victory at all.

FFG have said absolutely nothing in support of the use of deliberate stalling to win games. Changing the point margin for victory is NOT an act of support, it's a change to avoid annoying situations where one player is clearly ahead and inevitably going to win but unable to finish off their opponent before time runs out.

Let me point you - AGAIN - towards FFG's very own announcement on the matter, with my emphasis to help since you seem to be having issues with comprehension. I really don't understand how you could fail to agree (even if you don't like it) that such a strategy could fall within the parameters of what they are trying to achieve. Your argument basically says that you have to kill the enemy in their entirety (or apparently die trying to) - the below paragraph specifically says that you need not:

"First, we made full wins significantly easier to achieve. Under the new rules, a player only needs to destroy at least 12 squad points (the lowest squad point cost of a single ship) more than his or her opponent, which means players no longer have to build their lists with total annihilation in mind and can opt for a slightly more tactical, defensive game if they wish."

It really isn't. But you're never going to like that, are you?

And there we have it, folks, the obligatory iPeregrine unfounded accusation of cheating. What did I tell you?

If there's one thing I've come to expect from you more than your unfounded accusations of cheating, it's your succinct ability to make my arguments for me. It's not me that's having the issue differing between the two - but the irony of such a statement coming from you made me chuckle, so I'll thank you for that at least.

I've underlined your part of the quote to show how you don't get it, or are so authoritarian or lacking in imagination that you choose not to.

Again, thanks for making my argument for me. Let me rehash for you - again - how victory conditions in tournaments work. By getting the most tournament points. How are the points calculated? By the type of win you get. How are the type of wins determined - by your point margin - not just by killing everything in sight.

The end goal is not (necessarily) to kill all enemy ships. Or even try to. Am I wrong?

Never said it was the only hope (and I've already showed you -whether you believe my reports or not - it's not even my most common), just that it is one.

Your the one with the limited mindset on victory, not me.

You argue that a particular tactic is illegitimate (when it isn't), cry that people suggesting such cheat (when they don't) and complain that they should be banned (when they shouldn't).

To me, you're clearly the one showing unsportsmanlike behaviour, but to each his own I guess.

A stalemate is not a loss, if the y wing pilot refused to modify his strategy, on what basis do you make the claim that the a wings need to alter theirs?

From what the OP says the y-wing player did make a legitimate effort achieve the victory conditions, they simply failed to force the a-wings into combat (due to the a-wing player's deliberate stalling strategy).

Did you read the same OP I did about the Y-wing player refusing to split his force up to trap the A-wings? That isn't the A-wing players fault. If a fox escapes the hunter do you blame the fox for the hunter's ineptitude? (Okay bad example because in that scenario their is infinite space vs X-wing is played on a finite board of which 3 Turreted Y-wings covers a good deal of board space.)

You gain nothing by wasting 4-5 turns of flying in empty space instead of taking 1-2 turns to maneuver for a better shot immediately. The "strategy" only works if you know that as long as you play slowly enough the time limit will arrive in 4-5 turns and the game will end before your opponent can reach you. And so, in the absence of a time limit, nobody would bother wasting any effort on such an obviously pointless strategy.

I completely disagree with this. I will routinely use defensive tactics for multiple turns, as many as required, until I can regroup my squadron for the strike I want to make, when I want to make it.

In the absence of a timer, we're talking about non-tournament 'friendly' play and the best course of action is to walk away from a 'friendly' game that you don't like playing any longer.

Tournaments have timed rounds.

Flying defensively for a timed win is valid.

The conditions for timed wins are described in the Tournament Rules.

I'll agree to disagree with you, iPeregrine. We're not going to dissuade each other from our respective opinions.

You would potentially DQ the defensive player, while I would congratulate him.

So be it.

I see, so you think "commit suicide with a bad strategy, or I'll just fly around the table wasting time until we reach the time limit" is a valid position to hold?

And no, the winning player isn't obligated to make bad decisions. They're obligated to attempt to achieve the victory conditions (destroying all opposing ships) within the time limit. If that means a 100-0 slaughter where the losing player had no chance of victory, that's perfectly fine with me.

First it isn't suicide, a Y-wing has double the hull of an A-wing it will win the attrition battle under most circumstances, Second a "bad" strategy that still gives me a chance to win is infinitely better than one that gives me no chance, (whats that cliche basketball players like to say, "you always miss 100% of the shots you don't take"?). Third, if the OP won(which all of us agree he did) that means he achieved a victory condition imposed by the tournament (kill more point of your opponent then they kill of yours) just because it isn't the primary condition that you choose to play for doesn't mean it is nonexistent

I think the idea of "running the clock" is the core issue behind most of the differing views in this discussion and where oneself is positioned towards this point.

Most of the other points winning/loosing/playing for/with fun, WAAC and generic sportsmanship views depend on how you think of using the clock actively, at least in the case of the mentioned example.

This is very accurate, of course imagine if running the clock was banned in all gaming venues, football games would take longer because the score would be run up more, 90% of the teams in the NCAA tournaments would be banned for trying to kill time.

Another issue that probably complicates matters is that it was a turreted build that was beaten, even aiming for range 3 shots it is very hard to line up "advantageous shots" on a turret, because no matter what angle you come in at it is a joust.

My thoughts:

1. Is it against the rules? No. Stalling - deliberately taking too much time to take a 'turn' when you're ahead - is unsportsmanlike and to be looked down upon. If you are taking your turns quickly and efficiently and giving him plenty of turns in which to rectify the situation, then you are not stalling.
2. Was the A-wing player avoiding all contact whatever happened? No. He is avoiding charging into a 'box' of massed ion turret fire, which - given its Range 2 limit and his manouvrability advantage - he could avoid. He has pointedly stated that had the Y-wings split up, he would have re-engaged (let's be fair - he would be forced to pretty **** quickly).
3. The Y-Wing player is not helpless here. By splitting up his ships, the 'box' becomes a 'net' which can drag the board and force the **** A-wings to engage. Yes, he does so at a disadvantage but Y-wings can easily take a turn of fire without falling apart; if the A-wings have killed one of his ships that quickly they've almost certainly launched any expendable ordnance to do it.
4. The Y-Wing player chose not to split up his ships , knowing that this left him unable to bring the A-wings to battle. If there was no further fighting in the game, it is his fault just as much as the A-wing player. It is rather more inexplicable in his case, as he had nothing to lose - he was already heading for as complete a defeat as the rules allowed - there was no additional risk associated with losing another Y-wing.
5. Furthermore, yes, alright, range limits on ion turrets. But the Y-wing does have forward guns which do reach range 3. They're not great, but the more shots you put on an A-wing the better, and splitting up with converging and diverging primary arcs puts more of the table under your guns than slowly driving in circles in a tight blob.
6. At a basic level, manouvrable ships are not required to throw themselves into the enemies guns continuously. TIE interceptors and their like are commonly seen pulling a hard turn, boosting, breaking contact and 'coming round for another go' in a turn or two - assuming that by the time the ships re-acquire one another the more manouvrable squint will be in a better position - rather than committting to a head-to-head "Jousting Match" against tougher, better armed rebel fighters. Is that not 'avoiding contact'
7. I'd like to point out that I advocate keeping attacking, even if I'm several points up. However, in the scenario described, even then I'd be keeping at long range and trying to sabre-dance in and out of range 3 where the Y-wings cannot fire back. Expecting me to charge into massed turret fire because you refuse to split up is just as bad - perhaps not on the level of crashing two or more falcons into one another and forming a bunker line, but the approach is similar.

The OP's opponent had the choice during list building to take a ship that could be used to chase down the A- Wings but decided that no one would be jerky enough to fly around after doing a ton of damage. and he could wail on them after as they flew nearby to make it fun. If you want to force the A-Wings in to combat give them a ship they can't ignore and move the others in to support.

The OP has a right to win the game and should not have to feel like he needed to engage to make it fun for the other guy and potentially lose because he is taking his weakness up against the strength of others.

If I was the other player I would have changed my strategy to try and win anyway I could even if splitting up was the only option.

Well played I say.

Personally I would have done the same thing. I understand why some people wouldn't like it, however I feel there is absolutely no need for the opponent with the Y's to just quit. If I was flying the Y's I would certainly see it as a challenge and go after the A's in a way that forces them into a corner or near the edge.

To say that the OP is being unsportsmanlike is unfair for me, if you take a ship that can be destroyed in one go you need to protect that by flying in a way that strengthens that position is the only sensible course of action by refusing to adapt I would say that is a poor tactical approach and is a sore loser. Casual game, fair enough go straight into battle with a bansai approach but tournaments however casual are different

I would add that I'd play like this but make a bit of a joke of it, maybe a monty python esqe "run away" just to lighten it or a "oooh chase me" type approach

one generic problem with classifications like sportsmanship is, that it's best used when it is automatically applied by everyone and more implicit behavior, than explicit discussion topic.

Otherwise you face the danger that calling something/-one not sportsmanlike can be interpreted as unsportsmanlike in itself.

if explicitly used it allows for long ranging discussions and widely different perspectives, as it lurks in the subjective space within in the borders of the rules itself.

<looks at the page number>

.... q.e.d

I agree with a lot of the things people have said in response to iPeregrine, but I think we'd all be better served if we toned down the animosity just a hair. I realize how silly that sounds coming from me.

Personally I would have done the same thing. I understand why some people wouldn't like it, however I feel there is absolutely no need for the opponent with the Y's to just quit. If I was flying the Y's I would certainly see it as a challenge and go after the A's in a way that forces them into a corner or near the edge.

To say that the OP is being unsportsmanlike is unfair for me, if you take a ship that can be destroyed in one go you need to protect that by flying in a way that strengthens that position is the only sensible course of action by refusing to adapt I would say that is a poor tactical approach and is a sore loser. Casual game, fair enough go straight into battle with a bansai approach but tournaments however casual are different

I would add that I'd play like this but make a bit of a joke of it, maybe a monty python esqe "run away" just to lighten it or a "oooh chase me" type approach

Would a MC Hammer style "Can't touch this" be cliche?

Would a MC Hammer style "Can't touch this" be cliche?

No, that would be awesome! especially while doing the dance as well... lol might try that just for the dance at game club tonight!

With that much ion coverage, force the aA's to the edge then try to ion them off the board. What would have been a fun victory. Although I don't think I would ever run 4 Y's. Then all your ships have the same weakness that your opponent can exploit.

With that much ion coverage, force the aA's to the edge then try to ion them off the board. What would have been a fun victory. Although I don't think I would ever run 4 Y's. Then all your ships have the same weakness that your opponent can exploit.

I agree, and that's something that's been touched on here, but perhaps not discussed enough. Squad construction is as much a part of the skill involved as actually flying the ships, and some matches are lost before the game even begins.

This is unreal.

I just read the entire thread and did not come across a single justifiable argument as to why the A-Wing player did anything wrong, unsportsmanlike, our otherwise distasteful.

There is one question worth asking in this thread: Why did the Y-Wing player bring 4identical ships that are slow, unmaneuverable, and kitted for combat at range 2, and the experience any surprise whatsoever when he was outplayed by a list built on maneuverability?

He choose to make a unbalanced list and his lack of balance was exploited. Unbalanced lists are very powerful unless they, as rock, run into their paper. He gambled and loss. He doesn't deserve any sympathy. Also, anyone who flies A-Wings into a knot of turret armed ships is not a good sportsman - they are an idiot.

They are am idiot.

Legend!

I'm not going to bother reading through the last 10 pages I missed so this has probably been covered but I'm really surprised the Y-Wing pilot couldn't figure out a strategy in which he could get a range 2 ion shot at 1 A-Wing over the course of an entire game. If he didn't have any R2's on his ships to give him more greens then that's his fault.

I would state that this would likely be an ungratifying win and it was probably a really unsatisfying game for the lower but at the same time a tournament is a tournament.

I think the OP is lucky to have not faced a better opponent frankly because you should be able to trap those A-Wings before long.

just wondering, we probably see similar discussions when the phantom is released.

there it will be just a question how much (time cloaked)/(total max time) is fair for the enemy.

Just to throw another hat into the ring...

1. What the OP did is totally supported by the current rules.

2. His opponent performed poorly.

Without having watched the game, I can't say for certain whether the OP tried to engage at all during that time. But, running out the clock in a strategy game is kind of a **** move and definitely goes against the idea of "fly casual."

Winning is good and winning is fun. Winning when removing the "playing" part of the game isn't fun at all.

just wondering, we probably see similar discussions when the phantom is released.

there it will be just a question how much (time cloaked)/(total max time) is fair for the enemy.