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.

60-75 minute matches are also part of the core rules. Temporal limitations are no less important than spacial ones. I'm sorry, but your basic premise is just flat out wrong.

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.

I'm getting really tired of people who don't play or understand Magic trying to use it as an analogy.

60-75 minute matches are also part of the core rules. Temporal limitations are no less important than spacial ones. I'm sorry, but your basic premise is just flat out wrong.

No, they're part of the tournament rules, and exist only because untimed matches in a tournament will not allow the tournament to keep any kind of sensible schedule. The game was not designed to be played with a time limit, and imposing one causes a lot of problems (as we can see here) because of that.

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

No, the a-wing player should have to use a strategy that allows them to win the game without stalling. If the a-wing player sucks at the game and can't win without slow playing then too bad for them.

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.

Lol, that was quick (on my part) but just wanted to add that I 100% agree with this. Like I said earlier, being a jerk all boils down to attitude. This is an awesome game, and I want to encourage as many people to get into it as possible (much like I was encouraged myself).

60-75 minute matches are also part of the core rules. Temporal limitations are no less important than spacial ones. I'm sorry, but your basic premise is just flat out wrong.

No, they're part of the tournament rules, and exist only because untimed matches in a tournament will not allow the tournament to keep any kind of sensible schedule. The game was not designed to be played with a time limit, and imposing one causes a lot of problems (as we can see here) because of that.

Please re-read the original post:

We were running an informal mini-tournament at the local store.

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)

Actually, Yes, a single Y-wing taking on 4 A-wings would be suicide. If the A's are in range 1, they will get 3 shots, most likely with TL and focus, providing a severely dead Y-wing.

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.

Lol, that was quick (on my part) but just wanted to add that I 100% agree with this. Like I said earlier, being a jerk all boils down to attitude. This is an awesome game, and I want to encourage as many people to get into it as possible (much like I was encouraged myself).

Whoa Whoa Whoa! Start agreeing with me, and this thread might actually get somewhere! lol!

60-75 minute matches are also part of the core rules. Temporal limitations are no less important than spacial ones. I'm sorry, but your basic premise is just flat out wrong.

No, they're part of the tournament rules, and exist only because untimed matches in a tournament will not allow the tournament to keep any kind of sensible schedule. The game was not designed to be played with a time limit, and imposing one causes a lot of problems (as we can see here) because of that.

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

No, the a-wing player should have to use a strategy that allows them to win the game without stalling. If the a-wing player sucks at the game and can't win without slow playing then too bad for them.

So the A-wing player sucks at the game because he chose not to engage a force with no arc restrictions and TRIPLE its HP, but the guy with the list advantage that quits what should have been an easy match with plenty of time to win even with the A-wing player "stalling" (I don't even feel like trying to explain the purpose of a tactical retreat to you since you would ignore it again like the 10 other times people tried explaining it).

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 .

You've made this claim repeatedly. I'll happily (and proudly) admit that I haven't read all 20 pages of this mess, but is there actually anything to back up that he was playing slowly? Because the OP certainly doesn't say so.

If he was actually slow-playing, that's one thing. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that he was.

The reality here is that both players refused to engage unless they had an advantageous position. The A-wing player wouldn't engage when he had to face 3 ion turrets. The Y-wing player wouldn't dilute his turret strength. Either could have precipitated the engagement by being dumb and giving their opponent the advantage. Neither did.

It's really as simple as that. Unfortunately, you've decided to single out one player as unsportsmanlike for playing to his strengths, and another as the innocent victim, for exactly the same reason. You've progressed from dislike of tactics to what seem to be completely unfounded personal slurs, and accusations of a play style for which there is no evidence. It's almost disturbing, honestly.

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.

Lol, that was quick (on my part) but just wanted to add that I 100% agree with this. Like I said earlier, being a jerk all boils down to attitude. This is an awesome game, and I want to encourage as many people to get into it as possible (much like I was encouraged myself).

Whoa Whoa Whoa! Start agreeing with me, and this thread might actually get somewhere! lol!

No it won't - and stop being a jerk! :-)

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)

Actually, Yes, a single Y-wing taking on 4 A-wings would be suicide. If the A's are in range 1, they will get 3 shots, most likely with TL and focus, providing a severely dead Y-wing.

If 3+ A-wings get to range one and hit with 8/9 dice, and the Y-wing misses all 3 of his evades, and then the A-wings will have been baited in for the Other 2 Y-wings to engage.

The Y-wing player was frustrated and probably wasn't thinking clearly but the game was winnable if he could take a deep breath and calmly consider the options rather than calling cheap and packing up.

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)

Actually, Yes, a single Y-wing taking on 4 A-wings would be suicide. If the A's are in range 1, they will get 3 shots, most likely with TL and focus, providing a severely dead Y-wing.

If 3+ A-wings get to range one and hit with 8/9 dice, and the Y-wing misses all 3 of his evades, and then the A-wings will have been baited in for the Other 2 Y-wings to engage.

The Y-wing player was frustrated and probably wasn't thinking clearly but the game was winnable if he could take a deep breath and calmly consider the options rather than calling cheap and packing up.

Keep going. After the 4 A's pop the y, there are 2 left. They can either attempt to either focus on one or 2 A's. If they Ion 2, that still leaves 2 others that are free to continue to focus on one ship at a time. they will continue to peck them to death. Separating ships is most likely a suicide run. So that is what is faced by the y player. quit and stop the pain, or attempt to take down as many a's as possible. Personally I would have done the second, but im a glutton for punishment. Which is probably why I'm still responding.

How the **** was OP able to avoid 3 of those! Im new to the game but seriously; how/why wouldnt the y-wings hunt the smaller, faster a-wings?

I think everybody needs to go watch some nat geo videos of wolves hunting faster prey. Then we should all have a better understanding of what the y-wing player should have done.

Seriously you would have to be EXTREAMLY stuborn to "stay in formation" especially when YOUR ships are the tanky ones!

WOW, This whole thread is pretty sad if people are actaully defending this y-wing player...

Edit: Seriously, how could he "avoid" him for 6 game turns?

2nd Edit: Why do people value "staying in formation" so much? If your choices are stay in formation and lose or break formation and roll dice, why would one ever op to stay in formation? As a newcomer to the game that just seems totaly silly.

Wow, This got a bit ugly didn't it.

By all accounts it seems that what the OP did was legal by the tournament rules, dried and cut.

However, that said it seems that it is a bad to score a win in a tournament.

I have played a what I understand to be a VERY respected wargame for some 6+ years now and back before I played it it's tournament scene suffered from what was called "VP Sniping" where one side would kill a single model (Usually totally around 5% of the game size) then spend the rest of the game do their best to avoid engagement and thus the lose of VP's while the other player would try to get back the VP difference without giving out more VP's while doing so.

This caused the tournament games to become dull/ boring barely engaging affairs, and the game suffered because of it.

It will happen to this game as well, if FFG doesn't change the way tournaments are scored/ played.

Out of pure curiosity, may I ask which wargame are you speaking about?

Warmachine' Hordes

60-75 minute matches are also part of the core rules. Temporal limitations are no less important than spacial ones. I'm sorry, but your basic premise is just flat out wrong.

No, they're part of the tournament rules, and exist only because untimed matches in a tournament will not allow the tournament to keep any kind of sensible schedule. The game was not designed to be played with a time limit, and imposing one causes a lot of problems (as we can see here) because of that.

if a specific rule is part of the general game rules or the tournament rules is rather irrelevant, at least if you are playing at a tournament. Sure, there might be weaknesses in the rule set, but that doesn't make them less official than "good" rules.

As mentioned before, certain tactics might highlight the issues more than others, but in most timed games at some point time becomes a factor in your decision making, if not you are playing .. suboptimal anyhow. If you have explicitly named different victory conditions it's valid to aim for one of your choosing even if that isn't the best or most interesting tactic available.

rule changes might be interesting, e.g. time per player/round, or if one would be really interested in all out aggressive deathmatch games, just assign victory when the opponent is completely destroyed everything else is a draw, no in between wins or modified wins (might create some interesting shifts in list building ).

Posted Today, 08:05 AM

How the **** was OP able to avoid 3 of those! Im new to the game but seriously; how/why wouldnt the y-wings hunt the smaller, faster a-wings?

I think everybody needs to go watch some nat geo videos of wolves hunting faster prey. Then we should all have a better understanding of what the y-wing player should have done.

Seriously you would have to be EXTREAMLY stuborn to "stay in formation" especially when YOUR ships are the tanky ones!

WOW, This whole thread is pretty sad if people are actaully defending this y-wing player...

Edit: Seriously, how could he "avoid" him for 6 game turns?

2nd Edit: Why do people value "staying in formation" so much? If your choices are stay in formation and lose or break formation and roll dice, why would one ever op to stay in formation? As a newcomer to the game that just seems totaly silly.

Keep going. After the 4 A's pop the y, there are 2 left. They can either attempt to either focus on one or 2 A's. If they Ion 2, that still leaves 2 others that are free to continue to focus on one ship at a time. they will continue to peck them to death. Separating ships is most likely a suicide run. So that is what is faced by the y player. quit and stop the pain, or attempt to take down as many a's as possible. Personally I would have done the second, but im a glutton for punishment. Which is probably why I'm still responding.

The more likely scenario is the A-wings can't kill the Y-wing in one turn having expended all of their ordnance already and the Y-wing returns fire and then it is 3v3 or 3v4 with some ships on both sides damaged. My point is that a slim chance beats no chance, I have yet to see anyone counter that particular point (which is one alot of people were trying to get across but instead all we hear is "OMG ban the stalling slow player" or "You can't make some one choose to change their strategy or face certain defeat")

Posted Today, 08:05 AM

How the **** was OP able to avoid 3 of those! Im new to the game but seriously; how/why wouldnt the y-wings hunt the smaller, faster a-wings?

I think everybody needs to go watch some nat geo videos of wolves hunting faster prey. Then we should all have a better understanding of what the y-wing player should have done.

Seriously you would have to be EXTREAMLY stuborn to "stay in formation" especially when YOUR ships are the tanky ones!

WOW, This whole thread is pretty sad if people are actaully defending this y-wing player...

Edit: Seriously, how could he "avoid" him for 6 game turns?

2nd Edit: Why do people value "staying in formation" so much? If your choices are stay in formation and lose or break formation and roll dice, why would one ever op to stay in formation? As a newcomer to the game that just seems totaly silly.

Staying in formation adds a huge benefit that a lone ship wont have. Firepower. The combined firepower of 4 ships will strip most, if not all, of the defenses of ships, especially when they have an agility of 1.

So, 4 A wings at range one, each with a target lock and a focus vs 1 y wing with an evade. Best case for both sets is 12 hits to 5 evades making 7 actual hit. That is an almost dead Y.

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)

Actually, Yes, a single Y-wing taking on 4 A-wings would be suicide. If the A's are in range 1, they will get 3 shots, most likely with TL and focus, providing a severely dead Y-wing.

If 3+ A-wings get to range one and hit with 8/9 dice, and the Y-wing misses all 3 of his evades, and then the A-wings will have been baited in for the Other 2 Y-wings to engage.

The Y-wing player was frustrated and probably wasn't thinking clearly but the game was winnable if he could take a deep breath and calmly consider the options rather than calling cheap and packing up.

The Y-Wing player was an imbecile not to recognize that sending out a bait ship was his only recourse at that point. Sending in the Kamikaze Y-Wing benefits him 2 ways: if the A's close in to kill the stray, he can get shots on the fleeing A's, now that they're not retreating anymore. And secondly, if the A-wing player continues to disengage, the stray Y-wing might be able to sneak into range 2 and Ionize one of the A's and thus separating him from the pack for easy destruction.

Posted Today, 08:05 AM

How the **** was OP able to avoid 3 of those! Im new to the game but seriously; how/why wouldnt the y-wings hunt the smaller, faster a-wings?

I think everybody needs to go watch some nat geo videos of wolves hunting faster prey. Then we should all have a better understanding of what the y-wing player should have done.

Seriously you would have to be EXTREAMLY stuborn to "stay in formation" especially when YOUR ships are the tanky ones!

WOW, This whole thread is pretty sad if people are actaully defending this y-wing player...

Edit: Seriously, how could he "avoid" him for 6 game turns?

2nd Edit: Why do people value "staying in formation" so much? If your choices are stay in formation and lose or break formation and roll dice, why would one ever op to stay in formation? As a newcomer to the game that just seems totaly silly.

Staying in formation adds a huge benefit that a lone ship wont have. Firepower. The combined firepower of 4 ships will strip most, if not all, of the defenses of ships, especially when they have an agility of 1.

So, 4 A wings at range one, each with a target lock and a focus vs 1 y wing with an evade. Best case for both sets is 12 hits to 5 evades making 7 actual hit. That is an almost dead Y.

So what about the y-wing player in this situation? Its either hunt and roll dice or "stay in formation" and lose? Big ships are supposed hunt the small ships in this game right? Not the other way around? or have I been playing wrong?

The fact that the situation above has spawned such a debate is very intriguing.

So the A-wing player sucks at the game because he chose not to engage a force with no arc restrictions and TRIPLE its HP, but the guy with the list advantage that quits what should have been an easy match with plenty of time to win even with the A-wing player "stalling" (I don't even feel like trying to explain the purpose of a tactical retreat to you since you would ignore it again like the 10 other times people tried explaining it).

The fact that the y-wing player gave up because they were tired of their opponent's stalling tactics and/or made mistakes does not excuse cheating. The a-wing player sucks at the game because they had to resort to stalling to salvage a win. They used a strategy which had no hope of winning the game without a time limit, which is a sign of severely limited skill.

Also, remember that the y-wing's turret is limited to range 2. A good a-wing player would have stayed at range 3 as much as possible (and used defensive actions to stay alive when that wasn't possible) while slowly wearing down the y-wings. That would be a viable strategy that can win the game without stalling. Too bad the a-wing player didn't have the skill needed to do it.

I'll happily (and proudly) admit that I haven't read all 20 pages of this mess, but is there actually anything to back up that he was playing slowly? Because the OP certainly doesn't say so.

Of course they haven't admitted it. But I don't believe for a moment that when someone decides on a strategy of "stall until the time limit" they will be playing their turns as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's like speculating that someone who got caught with loaded dice might not have been planning to use them, because nobody actually saw them roll the illegal dice.

The reality here is that both players refused to engage unless they had an advantageous position. The A-wing player wouldn't engage when he had to face 3 ion turrets. The Y-wing player wouldn't dilute his turret strength. Either could have precipitated the engagement by being dumb and giving their opponent the advantage. Neither did.

Except the point you're missing is that the situation will almost inevitably be resolved when the a-wings run out of room to run and are forced to engage. The a-wing player's strategy only works if there is a time limit and the a-wing player wastes enough time that their opponent can't take enough turns to corner them properly.

Unfortunately, you've decided to single out one player as unsportsmanlike for playing to his strengths, and another as the innocent victim, for exactly the same reason.

No, that's not the case at all. I'm singling out one player as unsportsmanlike because they were stalling to reach the time limit instead of playing honestly. Play to your strengths as much as you want, as long as you have a viable plan for winning the game based on the intended victory condition of destroying all of your opponent's ships.

So the A-wing player sucks at the game because he chose not to engage a force with no arc restrictions and TRIPLE its HP, but the guy with the list advantage that quits what should have been an easy match with plenty of time to win even with the A-wing player "stalling" (I don't even feel like trying to explain the purpose of a tactical retreat to you since you would ignore it again like the 10 other times people tried explaining it).

The fact that the y-wing player gave up because they were tired of their opponent's stalling tactics and/or made mistakes does not excuse cheating. The a-wing player sucks at the game because they had to resort to stalling to salvage a win. They used a strategy which had no hope of winning the game without a time limit, which is a sign of severely limited skill.

Also, remember that the y-wing's turret is limited to range 2. A good a-wing player would have stayed at range 3 as much as possible (and used defensive actions to stay alive when that wasn't possible) while slowly wearing down the y-wings. That would be a viable strategy that can win the game without stalling. Too bad the a-wing player didn't have the skill needed to do it.

I'll happily (and proudly) admit that I haven't read all 20 pages of this mess, but is there actually anything to back up that he was playing slowly? Because the OP certainly doesn't say so.

Of course they haven't admitted it. But I don't believe for a moment that when someone decides on a strategy of "stall until the time limit" they will be playing their turns as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's like speculating that someone who got caught with loaded dice might not have been planning to use them, because nobody actually saw them roll the illegal dice.

The reality here is that both players refused to engage unless they had an advantageous position. The A-wing player wouldn't engage when he had to face 3 ion turrets. The Y-wing player wouldn't dilute his turret strength. Either could have precipitated the engagement by being dumb and giving their opponent the advantage. Neither did.

Except the point you're missing is that the situation will almost inevitably be resolved when the a-wings run out of room to run and are forced to engage. The a-wing player's strategy only works if there is a time limit and the a-wing player wastes enough time that their opponent can't take enough turns to corner them properly.

Unfortunately, you've decided to single out one player as unsportsmanlike for playing to his strengths, and another as the innocent victim, for exactly the same reason.

No, that's not the case at all. I'm singling out one player as unsportsmanlike because they were stalling to reach the time limit instead of playing honestly. Play to your strengths as much as you want, as long as you have a viable plan for winning the game based on the intended victory condition of destroying all of your opponent's ships.

So how exactly did the a wings avoid 3 of those?

No, that's not the case at all. I'm singling out one player as unsportsmanlike because they were stalling to reach the time limit instead of playing honestly. Play to your strengths as much as you want, as long as you have a viable plan for winning the game based on the intended victory condition of destroying all of your opponent's ships.

you might wanna reread the the victory conditions in the tournament rules....

... or do you want to imply those don't count, if so you might run into problems on your next tournament

What should the Y player done? Not rage quit #1. Force the A's to make a piloting mistake. Every die you make them roll is a chance they might fail. Pick away at them. One of the A's was wounded, focus on that one. If he could kill one, points would be closer, forcing the A's player to take action.

Again, I don't have a problem with the A's tactics during a tournament, and I feel that the Y could have made better piloting choices, but don't bring those tactics into a casual game unless your opponent plays just as ruthless.

No, that's not the case at all. I'm singling out one player as unsportsmanlike because they were stalling to reach the time limit instead of playing honestly. Play to your strengths as much as you want, as long as you have a viable plan for winning the game based on the intended victory condition of destroying all of your opponent's ships.

you might wanna reread the the victory conditions in the tournament rules....

... or do you want to imply those don't count, if so you might run into problems on your next tournament

I'm starting to regret the comparison to my son - at least with him I only have to explain simple concepts once.

you might wanna reread the the victory conditions in the tournament rules....

... or do you want to imply those don't count, if so you might run into problems on your next tournament

Sigh. I don't know why I have to keep saying this. X-Wing was designed with a single victory condition (outside of scenario missions), destroying all of your opponent's ships. It is designed to be played until this condition is met. This is a deliberate design choice that removes non-interactive and extremely frustrating stalling strategies from the game. You can play defensively, but you still have to interact with your opponent and bring the game to a conclusion instead of just wasting time flying in circles without ever engaging.

Unfortunately this doesn't work in tournaments, because you have a limited amount of time available and have to get everything finished before the store closes/everyone has to go to bed/etc. A time limit is an external factor that has to be imposed. The intent is that it is long enough for most matches to finish normally, with the time limit as a last resort to keep the schedule intact. Deliberately stalling to reach the time limit is taking advantage of this unfortunate external factor, much like unplugging your opponent's controller in a video game exploits the fact that there has to be an input device for the player to control their character. The game might still award you a win after disconnecting your opponent because it hasn't been designed to punish that kind of "strategy", but everyone knows that you cheated.