In 40k, this would be like the much more popular Space Marine player complaining that the Tau player refuses to engage them in close combat.

No, it's not at all the same. The Tau player is refusing to fight in melee, but they're continuing to shoot the space marine player to death and win the game on their terms. The running away a-wing player has no such chance to win without the time limit. It isn't the evasion that's the problem, it's the use of stalling to prevent the match from finishing within the time limit.

Why can't a cat-and-mouse game of careful positioning be just as enjoyable?

Because it's not a cat-and-mouse game of careful positioning, it's a game of "take as long as possible to execute my time-wasting turns so that we reach the time limit before anything that might involve a risk of losing can happen".

Dr4co,

It is because there is not recognition of multiple strategies. If you are a hammer, you resent the problems that refuse to be nails.

In 40k, this would be like the much more popular Space Marine player complaining that the Tau player refuses to engage them in close combat.

No, it's not at all the same. The Tau player is refusing to fight in melee, but they're continuing to shoot the space marine player to death and win the game on their terms. The running away a-wing player has no such chance to win without the time limit. It isn't the evasion that's the problem, it's the use of stalling to prevent the match from finishing within the time limit.

Will you get off it? The tactic is not stalling. It was a deliberate bid to force the y's to separate so they could be engaged separately, where the a's would have a chance. The y wing player. Refused to separate even though they were already losing. Because they were losing it is encumbant on them, not the a wings, to accept a sub optimal strategy.

Will you get off it? The tactic is not stalling. It was a deliberate bid to force the y's to separate so they could be engaged separately, where the a's would have a chance.

It was clearly stalling because the a-wing player's strategy would not have worked if there wasn't a time limit. If they had to win the mission on the actual victory conditions they would have been forced to engage at some point to finish off the y-wings.

The y wing player. Refused to separate even though they were already losing. Because they were losing it is encumbant on them, not the a wings, to accept a sub optimal strategy.

So you consider "use a suicidal strategy and let me kill you easily or I'll just stall until we run out of time" a legitimate demand to make?

Also, it was only a sub-optimal strategy from a time limit perspective. The correct play for the y-wings is to remain in formation, keep focused firepower available, and corner the a-wings in a spot where they can't escape without flying into turret range. The only reason this strategy wasn't available was the fact that it might have taken too much time to execute, allowing the a-wing player to successfully slow play their way to an easy win.

In 40k, this would be like the much more popular Space Marine player complaining that the Tau player refuses to engage them in close combat.

No, it's not at all the same. The Tau player is refusing to fight in melee, but they're continuing to shoot the space marine player to death and win the game on their terms. The running away a-wing player has no such chance to win without the time limit. It isn't the evasion that's the problem, it's the use of stalling to prevent the match from finishing within the time limit.

Will you get off it? The tactic is not stalling. It was a deliberate bid to force the y's to separate so they could be engaged separately, where the a's would have a chance. The y wing player. Refused to separate even though they were already losing. Because they were losing it is encumbant on them, not the a wings, to accept a sub optimal strategy.

Just throwing this out there:

If the Y's player hadn't quit, and the A's player hadn't quit, and there was no time limit, and no changes to the tactics made, who wins? Who loses?

If the Y's player hadn't quit, and the A's player hadn't quit, and there was no time limit, and no changes to the tactics made, who wins? Who loses?

The y-wing player, assuming equal skill levels. You can't run forever on a 3x3 table, eventually the y-wing player is going to force a shot if they're patient enough. It might take a lot of turns before it happens, but eventually combat is going to happen.

And of course the absolute worst-case scenario for the y-wings is a game that never ends. The a-wing player can never win with their chosen strategy, they can only delay losing for as long as possible.

Because it's not a cat-and-mouse game of careful positioning, it's a game of "take as long as possible to execute my time-wasting turns so that we reach the time limit before anything that might involve a risk of losing can happen".

Drop the strawman arguments, already. Evasive play does not, has not, and never shall equate with time wasting tactics. Time wasting is taking an inordinate amount of time to make decisions, or distracting your opponent to make him take longer. Breaking away from combat and forcing your opponent to either come after you in a careful game of cat-and-mouse, or lose to the time limit, is not that.

Just throwing this out there:

If the Y's player hadn't quit, and the A's player hadn't quit, and there was no time limit, and no changes to the tactics made, who wins? Who loses?

Depends. Assuming the A-wing player doesn't make a mistake and lose a ship, eventually the Y-wing player would have been forced to split up and try to pin one of the A-wings down, at which point the A-wings would attempt to converge on one of the Y-wings to take it out. The winner would be the player who pulled it off.

With no changes in tactics. So the Y's don't split.

If all of those things were true, the game would never end. The Ys player is desperately trying to get into range to shoot, while the As player is just running away. The A's tactic solely relies on the Y player to rage quit. The Ys player tactic relies on the A's to make a mistake.

Depends. Assuming the A-wing player doesn't make a mistake and lose a ship, eventually the Y-wing player would have been forced to split up and try to pin one of the A-wings down, at which point the A-wings would attempt to converge on one of the Y-wings to take it out. The winner would be the player who pulled it off.

With no changes in tactics. So the Y's don't split.

If all of those things were true, the game would never end. The Ys player is desperately trying to get into range to shoot, while the As player is just running away. The A's tactic solely relies on the Y player to rage quit. The Ys player tactic relies on the A's to make a mistake.

No - I think eventually you get a pass on the Y-wings with the A's, it takes awhile to come around behind, but the A-wings should be able to come up behind the y's at range 3 - where if the y's don't split, they probably have to k-turn to get out of the constant a-wing fire, which likely leads to a fast pass from the a's and probably another dead y-wing, and some ionized a-wings, but given the directions, the y's can't come around in time for the process to start again....

Will you get off it? The tactic is not stalling. It was a deliberate bid to force the y's to separate so they could be engaged separately, where the a's would have a chance.

It was clearly stalling because the a-wing player's strategy would not have worked if there wasn't a time limit.

That is irrelevant. It would be like saying that ioning an a wing off the board only works because they are playing in a restricted area.

If they had to win the mission on the actual victory conditions they would have been forced to engage at some point to finish off the y-wings.

They did win by the actual victory conditions. That is why the actual judges scored it an actual win. Seriously go read playing to win. You are embodying the scrub right now, cheap, cheap, cheap.

The y wing player. Refused to separate even though they were already losing. Because they were losing it is encumbant on them, not the a wings, to accept a sub optimal strategy.

So you consider "use a suicidal strategy and let me kill you easily or I'll just stall until we run out of time" a legitimate demand to make?

Holy hyperbole bat man, you must realize on some level how wrong you are to resort to that naked an emotional appeal. However yes, even in your exaggerated state that is absolutely reasonable. The a wings were winning, there is no onus on them at all to make it easier for the y wings to win. There was plenty of time to set up a drag net and force action with the a wings, they chose not to use that strategy.

Also, it was only a sub-optimal strategy from a time limit perspective. The correct play for the y-wings is to remain in formation, keep focused firepower available, and corner the a-wings in a spot where they can't escape without flying into turret range. The only reason this strategy wasn't available was the fact that it might have taken too much time to execute, allowing the a-wing player to successfully slow play their way to an easy win.

Wrong, the strategy you outlined was a losing bid for the y wings. They can not win if they do not bring the a wings to action. And apparently they weren't flying well at all. As. I have said repeatedly, and you have not addressed, the time limit is every bit as valid a rule as any other rule in the game. Do you object to people planning their moves based on the limited surface? The y wings tried to dictate the engagement in a manner where they could not doso. That was a losing move and it cost them the match.

Now as for suicide, bollocks, a y wing can stand up to the guns of An a wing, it can stand that very well.

Depends. Assuming the A-wing player doesn't make a mistake and lose a ship, eventually the Y-wing player would have been forced to split up and try to pin one of the A-wings down, at which point the A-wings would attempt to converge on one of the Y-wings to take it out. The winner would be the player who pulled it off.

With no changes in tactics. So the Y's don't split.

If all of those things were true, the game would never end. The Ys player is desperately trying to get into range to shoot, while the As player is just running away. The A's tactic solely relies on the Y player to rage quit. The Ys player tactic relies on the A's to make a mistake.

No - I think eventually you get a pass on the Y-wings with the A's, it takes awhile to come around behind, but the A-wings should be able to come up behind the y's at range 3 - where if the y's don't split, they probably have to k-turn to get out of the constant a-wing fire, which likely leads to a fast pass from the a's and probably another dead y-wing, and some ionized a-wings, but given the directions, the y's can't come around in time for the process to start again....

Here's the problem, the OP states that his plan wasn't to kill more Y's, but to just skirt around them.

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 there in lies the problem.

Depends. Assuming the A-wing player doesn't make a mistake and lose a ship, eventually the Y-wing player would have been forced to split up and try to pin one of the A-wings down, at which point the A-wings would attempt to converge on one of the Y-wings to take it out. The winner would be the player who pulled it off.

With no changes in tactics. So the Y's don't split.

If all of those things were true, the game would never end. The Ys player is desperately trying to get into range to shoot, while the As player is just running away. The A's tactic solely relies on the Y player to rage quit. The Ys player tactic relies on the A's to make a mistake.

"Desperately trying to get into range to shoot" is extremely over-dramatic and a very illogical exaggeration of reality

this is like the third time I've posted this picture already. whatever argument anyone can come up defending the Y-wing player is really instantly moot when confronted with the IRL situation. Just look at it, you have 3 Ywings for heavens sake, up against 3 Awings. Whichever Awing gets ionized is definitely dead due to the stress token from PTL. If the Awing does not push for the focus + evade, the chance of getting hit is extremely high. The Awing only has 4 hp each and if it gets ionized, it most likely would not be able to fire back at a Ywing that is not within its firing arc, which is very likely given that the Awing is presumably trying to run away and hence be facing away from the Ywing. Even if the Awing is facing the Ywing, 2atk dice vs 8 hp is not very likely to polish off the Ywing within the 4 turns it would take for the Ywing to ionize the Awing to death. And that is assuming only 1 Ywing.

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 there in lies the problem.

I think you are misrepresenting the OP's plans quite considerably. Let me quote the next paragraph of his that you omitted for some reason:

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.

His plan was always to converge on, and hopefully kill, one or more of the relatively isolated Y-wings once they split apart, but was equally happy to accept the time win if his opponent declined to split. Sounds like perfectly good tactical thinking to me.

Steak, read your quoted section again, it doesn't say what you think it says.

It does and it doesn't. That is absolutely correct that he does pose another scenario for the Y-wings to take. That option of course would be a terrible choice. Taking one ship against an entire squadron is not a smart move. Therefore, he forces his opponent into rage quitting or waiting for the match to time out. Again, in a real tournament, skirt around all you want. FFG says it is fine. When it comes to casual, it just seems like a **** move to make your opponent feed you ships or rage quit.

This is a strategy game, the goal is to give your opponent bad choices and cause them to lose. Winning a competitive game is not mean or bad. I really don't understand how you can regard that as anything but excellent flying.

the Ywing player had no reason whatsoever to rage quit, just look at this photo

A couple of further comments from me, then I think (hope?) I’m done on this topic:

@iPeregrine:

There’s no further point engaging with you on this - I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re either acting like a troll in the modern sense or are as intelligent as a troll in the traditional sense.

I’d be fine with your point of view if you were purely stating that you didn’t like the strategy (though I’d still argue that it’s a completely valid one without any necessary negative connotations), but you go further than that with your poor reasoning and inconsistency, combined with cheap and unproven accusations all topped off with mean and petty demands that must be met without any consideration for anyone else with a different viewpoint whatsoever.

You come across as a narrow-minded, inflexible, immature authoritarian that threatens to throw his toys at the first sign of being challenged - much like my two year old son.

And much like dealing with him, it’s far too easy to point the flaws in your ‘argument’, not to mention being equal parts tiring and hilarious, dully repetitive and just slightly embarrassing.

Off to the naughty room with you, I think - there’s a good boy.

@Steak:

Yes, I agree that just flying around and around in circles doesn’t accurately represent fluff, but I count that as being due to the limitations of having to play on a 3x3 board. In this scenario, I envisage squints would either break off and try for another shot if possible (which we can certainly do in the game) or flee the scene completely having calculated that the damage done versus the damage suffered in their hit and run tactics has been considered a success (which we can’t in the game and therefore try to emulate by evasion).

Re the never ending scenario – why can’t we just declare it a draw? Sure, it may not be as much fun as a win (for one person at least), but don’t write off the potential chance for entertainment, respect for ability and learning that might come out of it.

@WonderWAAAGH:

Yes, I know it’s never ending, but you know what? There are worse things in life and to me it’s a breath of fresh air to see so many so passionate about a game.

You are correct, this is a strategy game, and the point is to win. However, we as gamers shouldn't resort to the more underhanded tactics when it comes to casual play. I must make this next part clear, so I'm going to separate it.

In a tournament setting, feel free to use any legal tactic or combination of ships/upgrades you like. Beat your opponent into submission. That is what Tournaments are for. The best of the best. Yes, the original situation involved a "tournament", so it is fine.

However, I do not feel that tactics like this should be used in casual play, especially against new players. It can cause them to hate the game and stop playing. So tactics like this should not be encouraged in casual. Obviously, if your opponent is a regular opponent that like playing like that, feel free. We should all be ambassadors and try to help grow the player base.

the Ywing player had no reason whatsoever to rage quit, just look at this photo

It is a very pretty, completely devoid map. Throw some asteroids that force diversions in flying in there and remember that the Y's may not be sitting dead center in the map.

That is irrelevant. It would be like saying that ioning an a wing off the board only works because they are playing in a restricted area.

Oh FFS. Pointing out that the time limit exists and allows slow play strategies to work doesn't mean they aren't slow play. Obviously a slow play strategy depends on the time limit existing, that's the whole point.

They did win by the actual victory conditions. That is why the actual judges scored it an actual win. Seriously go read playing to win. You are embodying the scrub right now, cheap, cheap, cheap.

Only because FFG's tournament rules don't properly address (and penalize) slow play and stalling. This is the equivalent of bringing loaded dice and calling anyone who objects a "scrub" because it's legal according to some loophole in the rules.

Try this kind of thing in MTG, which does have rules governing slow play and stalling, and you'll start getting an escalating series of punishments until you're kicked out of the event.

Wrong, the strategy you outlined was a losing bid for the y wings. They can not win if they do not bring the a wings to action.

Look at the turret range picture. Given an infinite amount of time the y-wings will bring the a-wings to action even if they remain in a group so that they can focus fire when they do. The only way the a-wing player's "avoid combat" strategy works is if they slow play and reach the time limit before the y-wing player can have enough turns to corner them.

And apparently they weren't flying well at all.

Cheating against a bad player is still cheating.

Do you object to people planning their moves based on the limited surface?

No, because the limited surface is a part of the core rules and the game is designed around having a fixed playing area. The time limit is not part of the core rules, it's an external factor caused by the need to finish an event within a reasonable amount of time. What you're doing here is the equivalent of saying disconnecting your opponent's controller in the middle of a game is legitimate because cables that plug into the console are part of the game, just like planning which gun you're going to use based on which map you're playing.

The y wings tried to dictate the engagement in a manner where they could not doso. That was a losing move and it cost them the match.

The y-wings didn't fail because their strategy wouldn't dictate an engagement, the player quit the game in frustration because the a-wing player was clearly determined to slow play until the match ended.

the Ywing player had no reason whatsoever to rage quit, just look at this photo

It is a very pretty, completely devoid map. Throw some asteroids that force diversions in flying in there and remember that the Y's may not be sitting dead center in the map.

Rather irrelevant, considering asteroids do not prevent a shot at the A-wings. They gain a defensive die, but it doesn't change the area coverage.

Re the never ending scenario – why can’t we just declare it a draw? Sure, it may not be as much fun as a win (for one person at least), but don’t write off the potential chance for entertainment, respect for ability and learning that might come out of it.

Yes, a draw, but the problem that many people have with this scenario is that the A's would win because they killed one ship. I'm cool with that personally in a tournament atmosphere, but not in casual. The ruling is for tournaments, but I can see people taking it to casual.

So you consider "use a suicidal strategy and let me kill you easily or I'll just stall until we run out of time" a legitimate demand to make?

So the Y-wing player should not have to use a "suicidal" strategy but the A-wing player should?

Once again it is not suicidal for a Y-wing Player to split up against A-Wings, one Y-wing has as much HP as THE ENTIRE A-WING SQUAD PUT TOGETHER, and for the 100th time in this thread (not exaggerating, it probably is a pretty accurate number by this point) a strategy with even a 1% chance of working still beats just losing, "It has been said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results" (unfortunately this applies on so many levels here, the Y-wing player not breaking ranks, you trying to convince us that for some reason the OP is a poor sport because he didn't grab his ankles for the Y-wing player, us trying to convince you to think rationally about the points we are making, me expecting this thread to end)

not to mention the Ywings could easily dive through the asteroids with its 8 hp