I have a feeling that you would whip out a Star Fortress against a new player and shrug your shoulders if they made a comment that it isn't fair.

I just love it when someone tries to say that a Tournament and teaching a newbie how to play are the same thing... Because clearly if you do something in one situation you'd do exactly the same thing in the other.

New player can't play in tournaments. Gotcha. I'll remember to tell that to someone the next time they ask.

What a novel concept! The rules of a game establishing the parameters a game is played under. Not some subjective ambiguous social pressure from an overly vocal minority. Who would have thought...

"Hey, it's totally cool to act like a jerk! The rules don't say I can't!"

Some people play the game for fun and this thread is full of people dumping all over the Y-Wing guy. That game probably wasn't fun for him and he conceded. To him, it wasn't very sporting. Then, the OP comes to the forums to make a thread to drudge up people to agree with him to support his theory that he is right. Without even hearing the other side of the story, you dump all over him and congratulate the other guy for doing a good job and following the rules. But hey, he's not here to defend himself is he?

You do realize the rules actually do say you can't act like a jerk...

I mean it's written in there in pretty plain language. Not sure how you missed that one, unless you are just looking to be overly dramatic and hyperbolic.

I have a feeling that you would whip out a Star Fortress against a new player and shrug your shoulders if they made a comment that it isn't fair.

I just love it when someone tries to say that a Tournament and teaching a newbie how to play are the same thing... Because clearly if you do something in one situation you'd do exactly the same thing in the other.

New player can't play in tournaments. Gotcha. I'll remember to tell that to someone the next time they ask.

No offense dude, but get your head out of your you-know-what . Vanor didn't say that new players weren't welcomed to tournaments, or that they wouldn't be helped. Tournaments ARE a different beast than a casual pick up game though. I just entered my first tournament a while ago, and I found everyone there to be VERY helpful. That doesn't mean they weren't out to win though. We also had time between games, so that most of the players there helped de-brief me, and told me what I could be doing better, and what I had done wrong as well as right.

This community is generally very gracious and helpful . I imagine that most tournaments are much the same. If I see someone who is in need of help, I'd throw him a bone. I may want the win, so I would probably give out advice during the match only sparingly, and then after the match in much more detail. I dare you to find someone here who wouldn't.

Sure found one. The OP.

Could have easily said, "Sorry you felt that way, wasn't my intention. Here's what you could have done to beat me." Instead of going to the forums to look for people to prove to himself that he's right.

Also, above bolded for hilarity.

Sure found one. The OP.

Do you really think you're going to be well though around here by calling someone names?

Could have easily said, "Sorry you felt that way, wasn't my intention. Here's what you could have done to beat me."

Funny... Nothing in the OP said anything about his response to being called a name. So unless you were there, you have no idea how the OP responded... All you're doing is throwing around baseless insults.

Instead of going to the forums to look for people to prove to himself that he's right.

Sure found one. The OP.

In his particular position I probably wouldn't either. I have had more than enough experiences in video game tournaments where I sat down, said good luck, won my match, shook the guy's hand, and then tried to offer constructive advice only to be met with angry looks or even outright hostility. At this point if I can tell the opponent is salty about losing I just shake hands and say good game and move along, and busting out the sportsmanship card is a good sign the other player is probably mad and better off left alone to sulk

Sure found one. The OP.

Do you really think you're going to be well though around here by calling someone names?

Could have easily said, "Sorry you felt that way, wasn't my intention. Here's what you could have done to beat me."

Funny... Nothing in the OP said anything about his response to being called a name. So unless you were there, you have no idea how the OP responded... All you're doing is throwing around baseless insults.

Instead of going to the forums to look for people to prove to himself that he's right.

He came here and asked a question that's a pretty fair thing to do. Much more reasonable then anything you've posted here so far. Based on your posts so far, it seems like if anyone is likely to have issues for sportsman ship at a Tournament, it will be you.

The hypocrisy in your post is quite telling.

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.

I am again going to call BS on this line of thinking.

A-wings are flankers with a missile platform. Why would anyone just fly into tanks with 360 degree firing arcs? That's not being sporting... that's being dumb. Given the set up of the two squads and how the alpha round went.... why would the A-wing player do anything other than what he did?

Furthermore, this is a viable tactic that was used over and over again in WW2. Bombers would eventually lose their fighter support due to lack of fuel, and then the bombers themselves could only fly so long if they wanted to have enough fuel to get home. AAs and defending fighters would harass the bombers and force them off flight path. The fighters didn't need to engage directly, just force the bombers to use up fuel.

But back to this game.... Part of the reason why so many people think Interceptors and A-wings are not worth their points is because of the mind set that one always has to be attacking. In a tournament setting this is not the case. The goal is to have scored 12 more points than your opponent by the end of time. Avoiding further losses and not engaging in risky combat is a valid, legal, and sportsman like tactic. Stalling and causing turns to take longer is not.

Furthermore, forcing your opponent off of their original strategy is part of how you SHOULD be playing this game. Not being able to change or being unwilling to change your tactics is how you often lose this game.

And how dare anyone fly the banner of "Fly Casual" as means to call defense-first play unsportsmanlike. Do not tar or sully the beauty that is Fly Casual by demanding that people play the way you "feel" they should. We have our rules and we stick to them. Fly Casual means to continue having fun while playing even in the face of defeat. It means shaking hands with the person you just played and leaving your excuses and hubris at the door.

Defense first is a viable strategy, and you'd better start preparing your lists for it now! A-wings are getting upgraded and the Interceptors already have been. The meta is changing. Swarms and jousting are not the only way to play this game.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I don't have a problem with how the OP played (based on his description, which is all we have to go on)

I was commenting on someone who's sole tactic is to get 12 points and has no intention of ever really playing after that. For those that know Blood Bowl, it's like you're playing a team who's ahead by a point in the second half. They have possession of the ball and half your team is off the pitch due to KO's, injuries or whatever. The player then doesn't try to score and just runs out the rest of the match giving you no chance no matter how good or poor a player you are.

Based on the OP's description, he should have won. My comment was more aligned to stalling tactics in general which is also kinda trolling. There're people in this thread who say an all ion list is trolling, but an all-evade list isn't. Both of them CAN be but that doesn't mean they are. It all comes down to how they are being flown and everything in this thread is based on a second-hand account.

Also, this is from someone who loves all A-Wing and Interceptor lists.

I do understand your point, and my previous comments were not solely directed at you.

What is wrong with going into the game with the original game plan being win the alpha strike and avoid risky combat and any losses thereafter? Also, why would that not be fun to play against?

I'll answer both questions. 1) Nothing. It forces people to play in a different mind set and there are some players that think there is only one way to play this game.

2) I would have loved to step in and take those 3 Y-wings in an attempt to hunt those A-wings down! An opponent forcing me to change gears is not "unsportsmanlike" nor does it cause me to stop having fun. I'm having fun every time I push a little piece of my childhood around the table. I also know that there is NOTHING inside of the rules that an opponent can throw at me that I can't find a counter for. Finding the counter is PART OF the fun!

So yes... BS on both counts.

To address your "trolling" concern. There is no (let me repeat that) THERE IS NO "troll", "newb", "unfair" list in this game. ANY 100 point squad has a chance of beating any other 100 point squad. Those who wave the flag of "Fly Casual" will tell you this and will certainly NOT use any such language as to suggest a player is [insert name here] based on their list.

Lulz. For someone who seems to act as the authority on "Fly Casual", you have an interesting definition of "casual". As you seem to have the definition of, "as long as something isn't strictly forbidden, it's totally cool." There is such a thing as violating the spirit of the rules you know. I have a feeling that you would whip out a Star Fortress against a new player and shrug your shoulders if they made a comment that it isn't fair.

So the discussion is over and it's time to warp words and throw mud, eh?

Please... explain to me how the A-wing player "violated" the spirit of the game. Maybe you can enlighten us all with what the spirit of this game is... being we can't find it in the rule book. (And yes, don't act like a jerk IS in the rules.)

And yes, I do play under the banner of "Fly Casual". I have never made an excuse for my loses, been a jerk to my opponents, or used silly terminology to demonize types of lists or tactics I have trouble defeating.

If the "spirit" of the game is for A-wings to run head long into a group of turreted Y-wings, then maybe the name of the game should be changed to Star Wars Joust. Why even have the 3x3 play area and asteroids?

The hypocrisy in your post is quite telling.

Yeah... Starting to think we're dealing with a sock puppet account here...

Because you're no more able to back up your statements then some of the others who posted here saying pretty much the same thing you are now.

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.

I am again going to call BS on this line of thinking.

A-wings are flankers with a missile platform. Why would anyone just fly into tanks with 360 degree firing arcs? That's not being sporting... that's being dumb. Given the set up of the two squads and how the alpha round went.... why would the A-wing player do anything other than what he did?

Furthermore, this is a viable tactic that was used over and over again in WW2. Bombers would eventually lose their fighter support due to lack of fuel, and then the bombers themselves could only fly so long if they wanted to have enough fuel to get home. AAs and defending fighters would harass the bombers and force them off flight path. The fighters didn't need to engage directly, just force the bombers to use up fuel.

But back to this game.... Part of the reason why so many people think Interceptors and A-wings are not worth their points is because of the mind set that one always has to be attacking. In a tournament setting this is not the case. The goal is to have scored 12 more points than your opponent by the end of time. Avoiding further losses and not engaging in risky combat is a valid, legal, and sportsman like tactic. Stalling and causing turns to take longer is not.

Furthermore, forcing your opponent off of their original strategy is part of how you SHOULD be playing this game. Not being able to change or being unwilling to change your tactics is how you often lose this game.

And how dare anyone fly the banner of "Fly Casual" as means to call defense-first play unsportsmanlike. Do not tar or sully the beauty that is Fly Casual by demanding that people play the way you "feel" they should. We have our rules and we stick to them. Fly Casual means to continue having fun while playing even in the face of defeat. It means shaking hands with the person you just played and leaving your excuses and hubris at the door.

Defense first is a viable strategy, and you'd better start preparing your lists for it now! A-wings are getting upgraded and the Interceptors already have been. The meta is changing. Swarms and jousting are not the only way to play this game.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I don't have a problem with how the OP played (based on his description, which is all we have to go on)

I was commenting on someone who's sole tactic is to get 12 points and has no intention of ever really playing after that. For those that know Blood Bowl, it's like you're playing a team who's ahead by a point in the second half. They have possession of the ball and half your team is off the pitch due to KO's, injuries or whatever. The player then doesn't try to score and just runs out the rest of the match giving you no chance no matter how good or poor a player you are.

Based on the OP's description, he should have won. My comment was more aligned to stalling tactics in general which is also kinda trolling. There're people in this thread who say an all ion list is trolling, but an all-evade list isn't. Both of them CAN be but that doesn't mean they are. It all comes down to how they are being flown and everything in this thread is based on a second-hand account.

Also, this is from someone who loves all A-Wing and Interceptor lists.

I do understand your point, and my previous comments were not solely directed at you.

What is wrong with going into the game with the original game plan being win the alpha strike and avoid risky combat and any losses thereafter? Also, why would that not be fun to play against?

I'll answer both questions. 1) Nothing. It forces people to play in a different mind set and there are some players that think there is only one way to play this game.

2) I would have loved to step in and take those 3 Y-wings in an attempt to hunt those A-wings down! An opponent forcing me to change gears is not "unsportsmanlike" nor does it cause me to stop having fun. I'm having fun every time I push a little piece of my childhood around the table. I also know that there is NOTHING inside of the rules that an opponent can throw at me that I can't find a counter for. Finding the counter is PART OF the fun!

So yes... BS on both counts.

To address your "trolling" concern. There is no (let me repeat that) THERE IS NO "troll", "newb", "unfair" list in this game. ANY 100 point squad has a chance of beating any other 100 point squad. Those who wave the flag of "Fly Casual" will tell you this and will certainly NOT use any such language as to suggest a player is [insert name here] based on their list.

Lulz. For someone who seems to act as the authority on "Fly Casual", you have an interesting definition of "casual". As you seem to have the definition of, "as long as something isn't strictly forbidden, it's totally cool." There is such a thing as violating the spirit of the rules you know. I have a feeling that you would whip out a Star Fortress against a new player and shrug your shoulders if they made a comment that it isn't fair.

So the discussion is over and it's time to warp words and throw mud, eh?

Please... explain to me how the A-wing player "violated" the spirit of the game. Maybe you can enlighten us all with what the spirit of this game is... being we can't find it in the rule book. (And yes, don't act like a jerk IS in the rules.)

And yes, I do play under the banner of "Fly Casual". I have never made an excuse for my loses, been a jerk to my opponents, or used silly terminology to demonize types of lists or tactics I have trouble defeating.

If the "spirit" of the game is for A-wings to run head long into a group of turreted Y-wings, then maybe the name of the game should be changed to Star Wars Joust. Why even have the 3x3 play area and asteroids?

If you actually read my post you would realize that I agreed with the OP. Didn't think he did anything wrong based on what he said. (which is, of course, only one side of the story)

What I was saying is that lists in and of themselves are not good or bad. You can fly like a jerk no matter your list and THAT violates the spirit of the game.

The hypocrisy in your post is quite telling.

Yeah... Starting to think we're dealing with a sock puppet account here...

Because you're no more able to back up your statements then some of the others who posted here saying pretty much the same thing you are now.

VanorDM, as a fellow respected member of this forum I think it's time I quote Mark Twain, we listen to his wise words, and then move on:

"Never argue with stupid people, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

We've made our points, they are well defended and go unchallenged. Time to move on.

Fly Casual

The hypocrisy in your post is quite telling.

Yeah... Starting to think we're dealing with a sock puppet account here...

Because you're no more able to back up your statements then some of the others who posted here saying pretty much the same thing you are now.

VanorDM, as a fellow respected member of this forum I think it's time I quote Mark Twain, we listen to his wise words, and then move on:

"Never argue with stupid people, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

We've made our points, they are well defended and go unchallenged. Time to move on.

Fly Casual

I guess I will leave this "gracious and helpful community" to the "respected members of this forum" and they can go pat themselves on the back for getting rid of another "obviously stupid" person.

Enjoy your "well defended" and "unchallenged" points as you beat down everyone who disagrees with you.

Fly Casual indeed.

Fly Casual indeed.

You're the one who started with the aggressive tone, and personal insults here, not us.

Yep, +1 for the OP. I think it's bogus that a certain someone has been replying as if it was either the OP's job to make sure that his opponent had a chance to destroy his ships or even that he had a responsibility to see that he had fun.

Here's the long and short of things: if you put together a mediocre list or employ mediocre strategies, don't expect me to play into your hand so that you have fun.

This is NOT toxic or bad for the community, and if anything, should get the OP's opponent to either become a better player or stop playing tournaments, either of which is a perfectly acceptable thing.

Lastly, the whole sportsmanlike question aside, tournaments are played to be won. If you don't want to win, why enter a tournament that is measured SOLELY in Wins and Losses. There is no "awwww, but he was such a nice guy" wookie plushie award. You get points for beating your enemy and if that means guerilla hit and run until you have an advantage then avoiding getting shot till time runs out, so be it!

There is one thing I do not understand. How long did the game last, at 6-7 rounds after the initial joust? These should have been extremely fast rounds. If I was the Y-wing player, I would play LIGHTNING fast and if my opponent slow played then you call the TO over to warn against stalling the game. If he keeps doing it then he loses. If he plays fast as well, then you will have WAY more than 6-7 rounds.

Also, it's really not THAT difficult to corral the A-wings into a corner if you lead your targets. You don't even have to split your ships up very much to do it.

Quick math...

1. Dials: 1.5 minutes : Take about 20-60 seconds to choose dials as the Y-wing player. You only have 3 ships so all you have to do is figure out how to lead him. It should take far less than 60 seconds if you are a proficient player. We'll give your opponent a minute and a half to put down dials for his 4 ships. All he is trying to do is run away, so it shouldn't even take that long.
2. Y-wing actions: 1.5 minutes : Take about 30-90 seconds to move your 3 ships ships and take actions. Measure for range for Target Lock on your lead ship, TL if possible otherwise everybody focuses. This should only take about 45 seconds but we'll call it a full minute and a half.
3. A-wing actions: 2 minutes : A-wing player moves his 4 ships and takes actions. We'll give him 2 minutes for 4 ships, which is half a minute per ship. That's generous even with taking Boost actions.

That all adds up to 5 minutes per round. 6-7 rounds at that pace would be 30-35 minutes, which should be about half the remaining time after the initial joust. In 6-7 rounds you should not have a problem corralling the A-wings into a corner if you lead your targets, with very minimal formation breaking. I therefore can only conclude that either:

• The Y-wing player failed to force the game pace to speed up after he lost a ship, or,
• He didn't know how to fly to force the A-wings into a corner and just gave up instead.

This is a case where it would be appropriate to have an actual CLOCK like in chess. This would allow the Y-wing player to force the game pace to increase and give him opportunity to chase down his opponent. Unfortunately implementing a clock in this game is difficult and is rarely "needed" for cases like these.

Yep, +1 for the OP. I think it's bogus that a certain someone has been replying as if it was either the OP's job to make sure that his opponent had a chance to destroy his ships or even that he had a responsibility to see that he had fun.

Here's the long and short of things: if you put together a mediocre list or employ mediocre strategies, don't expect me to play into your hand so that you have fun.

This is NOT toxic or bad for the community, and if anything, should get the OP's opponent to either become a better player or stop playing tournaments, either of which is a perfectly acceptable thing.

Lastly, the whole sportsmanlike question aside, tournaments are played to be won. If you don't want to win, why enter a tournament that is measured SOLELY in Wins and Losses. There is no "awwww, but he was such a nice guy" wookie plushie award. You get points for beating your enemy and if that means guerilla hit and run until you have an advantage then avoiding getting shot till time runs out, so be it!

I would like a Wookie plushie award.

Well this post has been Ionized a few times!

@OP

**Official Rulings**

Did you win by legal conditions? Yes

Did you play in a sportsmanlike manner? Yes

Did the opponent play in a sportsmanlike manner? Yes

Tournament wise, would this hurt your chances for a tie-breaker? Yes

**Personal Rulings**

Did both play styles cause the game to stalemate? Yes

Could either have changed how they played? Yes

Is this a viable common tactic to use? Assuming not really

If commonly used would it have effect on local shop / pickup games? Yes

For what was posted, I give you points that nothing blew out of proportions. We can only speculate the other players choices.

The "unsportsmanlike" could also apply to swarm/fluster cuck tactics, or opposite of this match "Ionized Spam" as well. In most games, there are those by thought or by chance find such a winning strategy as this "12 Point Elude to Win". It has the same cliche aspect as being the "typical archtype" in MMO games.

The rules are vague so that any conflicts / contradiction would be handle via TO. If persistent issues arise, I assume it would make it to FFG for official ruling.

I would like a Wookie plushie award.

Me too.

100 point dog fight. Hmm...

dog·fight

ˈdôgˌfīt/

noun

1.a close combat between military aircraft.

I guess FFG should refrain from using the term dog fight since the proclaimed general consensus is win by any means.

IMHO, Running to escape and hide in a dogfight is as unsporting behavior as delaying. The two actions are essentially the same.

Enjoy the tournaments gentlemen.

XAQT34:

I agree that in a friendly it would be kind of tacky to play all out defense, especially if you are playing against a beginner. But even against a beginner you can offer it as a learning experience (albeit not very useful). What the beginner should learn is that an A-Wing is not designed to joust and shouldn't be used for that role.

If you want to know how an A wing will fare in repeated jousts against a (n)-Wing? leave the models in their case and roll a bunch of dice. Record your results. Cry for the sploded A-wing. There, now you know.

100 point dog fight. Hmm...

dog·fight

ˈdôgˌfīt/

noun

1.a close combat between military aircraft.

I guess FFG should refrain from using the term dog fight since the proclaimed general consensus is win by any means.

IMHO, Running to escape and hide in a dogfight is as unsporting behavior as delaying. The two actions are essentially the same.

Enjoy the tournaments gentlemen.

tournament (ˈtʊənəmənt, ˈtɔː-, ˈtɜː-) — n

1. a sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to determine an overall winner

2. a meeting for athletic or other sporting contestants: an archery tournament 3. medieval history a. (originally) a martial sport or contest in which mounted combatants fought for a prize b. (later) a meeting for knightly sports and exercises

In all honesty, if this was my tournament, I wouldn't have faulted the OP at all. If it had been a casual game with no time limit, I would have lost my $#it..

100 point dog fight. Hmm...

dog·fight

ˈdôgˌfīt/

noun

1.a close combat between military aircraft.

I guess FFG should refrain from using the term dog fight since the proclaimed general consensus is win by any means.

IMHO, Running to escape and hide in a dogfight is as unsporting behavior as delaying. The two actions are essentially the same.

Enjoy the tournaments gentlemen.

tournament (ˈtʊənəmənt, ˈtɔː-, ˈtɜː-) — n

1. a sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to determine an overall winner

2. a meeting for athletic or other sporting contestants: an archery tournament 3. medieval history a. (originally) a martial sport or contest in which mounted combatants fought for a prize b. (later) a meeting for knightly sports and exercises

Win at all cost? :0)

IMHO, Running to escape and hide in a dogfight is as unsporting behavior as delaying.

No it's not, and I don't care if you start it with IMHO or not...

In the one case, someone running. I have the option of trying to run them down. Given the size of the table and the range of the ships doing so isn't really that hard. If I can't corner one of the A's on the board with my 3 Y-wings then the problem is with me, not the person running.

However if someone is taking 10-15 minutes to set their dials, the only thing I can do to stop them is going to the TO.

Win at all cost? :0)

Winning at all costs naturally includes things like cheating. Playing to win with in the rules is a completely different thing. But it's pretty clear that you can't grasp the difference between the two.

Win at all cost? :0)

Winning at all costs naturally includes things like cheating. Playing to win with in the rules is a completely different thing. But it's pretty clear that you can't grasp the difference between the two.

There's that passive-aggresiveness you are so found of calling other people out for :/ why are you so mad that I don't agree with you?

Probably doesn't like being called names based on different opinions. Or having words put into his mouth.

Probably doesn't like being called names based on different opinions. Or having words put into his mouth.

Please, show where I have called him names.