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.

ORIGINAL POST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN IT AND ARE TAKING THINGS WAYYY OUT OF CONTEXT!!!

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Your assessment of the strategy at hand, in your game state, was to fly to force your opponent to break his formation to entrap you or else never get a shot on your A-wings. You played the correct strategy and you won. Your opponent wanted to face you only en masse so, by avoiding his mass, he never got to shoot at your ships. His bad tactical play does not lead to you having played unsportsmanly, regardless of where this thread went.

There's that passive-aggresiveness you are so found of calling other people out for

Who's passive aggressive? I think I was pretty clear on my opinion on your statements around here. You clearly are the type of person who feels you and you alone know the 'correct' way to play and anyone who doesn't agree with you is some sort of "destroy the competition at all costs" monster.

You're so aggressively casual that I'm relatively sure you'd get kicked out of any event you go to, because of your poor sportsmanship. As soon as someone did something that was against your unwritten code of conduct, you'd have such a massive hissy fit that you'd get bounced out of the venue.

You keep popping up with this "win at all costs" as if you somehow are winning an argument by just using that phrase. You sound just like the worse of the Warhammer 40k rules lawyers who can't wait to pounce on someone as soon as they give them an opening.

Further more I'm becoming more and more convinced that your only reason to be here is because you're a troll. The only posts you make around here are in these kinds of controversial discussions in which case you take the most controversial side and act as if you're scoring points when all you really seem to be doing is keeping the fires stoked.

why are you so mad that I don't agree with you?

If you ever agreed with me, I'd have to reconsider my position.

by avoiding his mass, he never got to shoot at your ships.

One of the keys of good play is not letting the other guy play the game he wants to play, but rather force him to play the one you want.

There's that passive-aggresiveness you are so found of calling other people out for

Who's passive aggressive? I think I was pretty clear on my opinion on your statements around here. You clearly are the type of person who feels you and you alone know the 'correct' way to play and anyone who doesn't agree with you is some sort of "destroy the competition at all costs" monster.

You're so aggressively casual that I'm relatively sure you'd get kicked out of any event you go to, because of your poor sportsmanship. As soon as someone did something that was against your unwritten code of conduct, you'd have such a massive hissy fit that you'd get bounced out of the venue.

You keep popping up with this "win at all costs" as if you somehow are winning an argument by just using that phrase. You sound just like the worse of the Warhammer 40k rules lawyers who can't wait to pounce on someone as soon as they give them an opening.

Further more I'm becoming more and more convinced that your only reason to be here is because you're a troll. The only posts you make around here are in these kinds of controversial discussions in which case you take the most controversial side and act as if you're scoring points when all you really seem to be doing is keeping the fires stoked.

why are you so mad that I don't agree with you?

If you ever agreed with me, I'd have to reconsider my position.

So because I have a different opinion than you, and am passionate about it, I'm a troll. What a ridiculous defense.

You are overly upset that I disagree with you and you stoop to calling 'troll troll!!' like some kind of angry child.

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. We don't have to agree with each other, but calling "troll" makes you look like an idiot.

Anyone else think this thread should probably be locked to prevent us from wasting anymore time on what happened in a game that the OP and his opponent have already moved on from/forgotten about? I think by now we have covered this in enough detail from almost every angle that all it has turned into is bickering and trolling.

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.

I've yet to "Test Roll" for this game, but I have done my share of test rolling for Tabletop game without ever playing. You don't even have to go that far. As I have assisted both middle school and college level statistics, it's just basic math computation for a positive result.

I understand what the A-Wings capabilities would be. X - Wing game wise .. even a Vanilla Green could have 6 defense dice, (#3 Agi, #1 PTL "Evade", #1 AGI Stealth Device,#1 Evade 3 Range Bonus) so even if Y wing got in range the A-Wing had superior defense through evasion AS IT WAS DESIGN TO! It's like the

Y-Wing has durability 1 AGI, 5 Hull, 3 Shield + 1 to either Hull or Shield. AGI option, could take R2-F2 + Stealth Device.

or R2-F2 +1 AGI /R2-D2 +1 shield recovery per turn.

Which is great on paper, but doesn't always turn out in real life / play.

If repeatable is what I would base most peoples concern. Let alone by the OP to post this question, they themselves are concerned about the specific match & results .

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.

This topic has lasted 16 pages for what will be a bad and impossible/bad strategy roughly 99%of the time in games and a terrible plan to ever approach a tournament as a whole with, even if it is clearly allowed by the rules.

This topic has lasted 16 pages for what will be a bad and impossible/bad strategy roughly 99% of the time...

Yeah the win here had zero to do with sportsmanship really. The OP won because the other guy couldn't apparently change his plan. Playing like that will seldom take you far in a tournament.

There really isn't any need to change the rules because of tactics like the OP's, because most of the time they won't be every effective.

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?

There's that passive-aggresiveness you are so found of calling other people out for

Who's passive aggressive? I think I was pretty clear on my opinion on your statements around here. You clearly are the type of person who feels you and you alone know the 'correct' way to play and anyone who doesn't agree with you is some sort of "destroy the competition at all costs" monster.

You're so aggressively casual that I'm relatively sure you'd get kicked out of any event you go to, because of your poor sportsmanship. As soon as someone did something that was against your unwritten code of conduct, you'd have such a massive hissy fit that you'd get bounced out of the venue.

You keep popping up with this "win at all costs" as if you somehow are winning an argument by just using that phrase. You sound just like the worse of the Warhammer 40k rules lawyers who can't wait to pounce on someone as soon as they give them an opening.

Further more I'm becoming more and more convinced that your only reason to be here is because you're a troll. The only posts you make around here are in these kinds of controversial discussions in which case you take the most controversial side and act as if you're scoring points when all you really seem to be doing is keeping the fires stoked.

why are you so mad that I don't agree with you?

If you ever agreed with me, I'd have to reconsider my position.

So because I have a different opinion than you, and am passionate about it, I'm a troll. What a ridiculous defense.

You are overly upset that I disagree with you and you stoop to calling 'troll troll!!' like some kind of angry child.

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. We don't have to agree with each other, but calling "troll" makes you look like an idiot.

You're a troll for a whole lot of reasons, any one of which is readily apparent to anyone who reads your posts.

In the end the cheapness comes from playing the clock, not the game. It's always been considered bad form in strategy games to run the clock, even if you aren't slow playing. X-wing wasn't designed to be played on a clock, but tournaments make it a necessity.

This. X-Wing was designed to be played until one player's entire squadron is destroyed, however long it takes. The time limit is an external factor imposed by the need to get an event finished within a reasonable amount of time. Deliberately attempting to reach the time limit and win because you couldn't finish your game is poor sportsmanship.

So, there's a very simple test here: imagine the TO declared that the time limit is not in effect this round, and you will play the game until one side is destroyed. Would you change your tactics? If you would keep doing the same thing then you're using a legitimate strategy that just happens to involve flying defensively. If you would abandon your strategy and fly more aggressively then you're stalling and guilty of poor sportsmanship, and you should be banned from the event (and all future events).

I would argue that without the time limit, the game would end in a stalemate. If the best (perceived) strategy for two players to make prevents them from playing the game to completion (without a time limit) then what you're asking is for one of the players to elect to put himself at a disadvantage. That would be unfair and a bit unreasonable. Are Chess players being poor sports if neither of them intentionally put their kings in harms way?

Well, I didn't read 16 pages of this, but I'll throw my 2 cents into this.

It is a legit strategy, HOWEVER, there is nothing good to come of it on the standpoint of growing a community and expanding the playerbase. I have seen people quit playing games they once loved because they were so fully demoralized by other players using tactics/lists/builds just like this. This isn't just Xwing. I'm talking Magic, 40k, Warhammer, etc. As a person who wants to play fun games, and want to continue playing with like-minded people, I will never pull a move like that, especially in casual play (an informal mini-tournament is casual to me). Now, if this is a tournament, or practice for a tournament, all is fair and I cant fault you for it. (By practice for a tournament, I mean someone who WANTS to play against mean lists and unconventional tactics.) If I were in the OPs shoes, and I was dead set on continuing the tactic, I would have tried to give the other player a couple of polite suggestions on how to improve their chances of beating my tactic. I've done this in the past with other games, kept it fun, helped educate, and most importantly maintained the player base.

TL:DR - What's the point in beating people if it makes you have no one else to play?

People are dragging all kinds of unrelated issues into this. The A-Wing player's tactic is no threat to the integrity of the game or the player base. As had been started over and over again, there is no way that a human being with an IQ above room temperature would have actually been unable to catch an A-Wing with even three Y-Wings.

As had been started over and over again, there is no way that a human being with an IQ above room temperature would have actually been unable to catch an A-Wing with even three Y-Wings.

Obviously not, given an unlimited amount of time. This is why flying away from combat forever is not a viable strategy in an un-timed game. But when there is a time limit it is entirely possible to avoid combat long enough to reach the time limit . Which is the whole point of the "strategy", you waste a few turns on a pointless chase until time runs out and the game ends with your points destroyed advantage intact.

This is why I have such a problem with stalling and slow play "tactics". It's a terrible strategy that only wins because tournaments can't afford to have unlimited time available for each game. By using it you're essentially admitting that you suck at the game and can only win if nobody is allowed to play.

Well, I didn't read 16 pages of this, but I'll throw my 2 cents into this.

It is a legit strategy, HOWEVER, there is nothing good to come of it on the standpoint of growing a community and expanding the playerbase. I have seen people quit playing games they once loved because they were so fully demoralized by other players using tactics/lists/builds just like this. This isn't just Xwing. I'm talking Magic, 40k, Warhammer, etc. As a person who wants to play fun games, and want to continue playing with like-minded people, I will never pull a move like that, especially in casual play (an informal mini-tournament is casual to me). Now, if this is a tournament, or practice for a tournament, all is fair and I cant fault you for it. (By practice for a tournament, I mean someone who WANTS to play against mean lists and unconventional tactics.) If I were in the OPs shoes, and I was dead set on continuing the tactic, I would have tried to give the other player a couple of polite suggestions on how to improve their chances of beating my tactic. I've done this in the past with other games, kept it fun, helped educate, and most importantly maintained the player base.

TL:DR - What's the point in beating people if it makes you have no one else to play?

See, this stance drives me to distraction (though just to be clear I have no issue with the author!). To me, it implies a certain moral high ground belongs to a particular group of players that want to play the game one way and not to another because they refuse to engage that player on their terms (to their own detriment). 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.

I just refuse to accept that a strategy (any strategy) that is fully compliant with the rules - *especially* ones that are consistent with the fluff for the ships being used are somehow less valid or pure than another.

I also think - having been on *both* sides of this strategy myself - that people are far undervaluing the fun/challenge that comes with the thrill of the chase. Nothing more satisfying (or heartbreaking, depending on whose side you're on) than finally blowing that elusive PTL Fel out of sky.

I get the casual vs tournament commentary, but I think people are missing the idea that this scenario can still be fun regardless of the setting if you have the right people: a jerk is a jerk not just because of a tactic they use (and often not because of a tactic at all).

It all boils down to attitude.

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.

No, they are not at all the same, one is a valid tactic in game which can be defeated with other game mechanics, like the limited play area. The other is an out of game meta behavior which is no more legal than threats or foul language. It is like equating a boxer who dances away from powerful hits, instead of blocking them, with a boxer who bites off the other boxer's ear.

All of you introducing these types of analogies are showing that no reason underlies your position, just hyperbole.

This is the thread that never ends. Yes, it goes on and on my friends. Some people starting crying foul not knowing what it was, and they'll continue crying foul forever just because...

This is the thread that never ends.

It's just lke chasing down defensive A-Wings (for some people)...

This is the thread that never ends. Yes, it goes on and on my friends.

If this was the thread that never ends, someone would have asked for a Star Destroyer by now.

That might almost be more productive at this point.

Well, I didn't read 16 pages of this, but I'll throw my 2 cents into this.

It is a legit strategy, HOWEVER, there is nothing good to come of it on the standpoint of growing a community and expanding the playerbase. I have seen people quit playing games they once loved because they were so fully demoralized by other players using tactics/lists/builds just like this. This isn't just Xwing. I'm talking Magic, 40k, Warhammer, etc. As a person who wants to play fun games, and want to continue playing with like-minded people, I will never pull a move like that, especially in casual play (an informal mini-tournament is casual to me). Now, if this is a tournament, or practice for a tournament, all is fair and I cant fault you for it. (By practice for a tournament, I mean someone who WANTS to play against mean lists and unconventional tactics.) If I were in the OPs shoes, and I was dead set on continuing the tactic, I would have tried to give the other player a couple of polite suggestions on how to improve their chances of beating my tactic. I've done this in the past with other games, kept it fun, helped educate, and most importantly maintained the player base.

TL:DR - What's the point in beating people if it makes you have no one else to play?

See, this stance drives me to distraction (though just to be clear I have no issue with the author!). To me, it implies a certain moral high ground belongs to a particular group of players that want to play the game one way and not to another because they refuse to engage that player on their terms (to their own detriment). 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.

I just refuse to accept that a strategy (any strategy) that is fully compliant with the rules - *especially* ones that are consistent with the fluff for the ships being used are somehow less valid or pure than another.

I also think - having been on *both* sides of this strategy myself - that people are far undervaluing the fun/challenge that comes with the thrill of the chase. Nothing more satisfying (or heartbreaking, depending on whose side you're on) than finally blowing that elusive PTL Fel out of sky.

I get the casual vs tournament commentary, but I think people are missing the idea that this scenario can still be fun regardless of the setting if you have the right people: a jerk is a jerk not just because of a tactic they use (and often not because of a tactic at all).

It all boils down to attitude.

Looking at it Fluff-wise, I don't think any star fighter would just fly circles around their enemy, not firing a shot. Wouldn't the extreme maneuverability of the A-wing be used to get into the blind spots of their enemies and take them down that way?

Really, I feel like what you use tactics/lists should be based on what style of play (casual/competitive) and who you are playing against. For example, a friend and I would play Warhammer against each other. We ALWAYS brought the most broken, beardy, cheesy, stuff to the table. We would then use the cruelest and meanest tactics possible. Why? because we like playing that way. The thing is, if we were to play against other people, we would take a different list, and not employ certain tactics, that way those people will have fun, and we will have a chance to play them again. If they get better and want a tougher challenge, we bring it.

This is the thread that never ends. Yes, it goes on and on my friends.

If this was the thread that never ends, someone would have asked for a Star Destroyer by now.

If the OP had to go against a Star Destroyer, at least he would have lost one A-wing. lol.

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Short answer? Yes. Because it's boring. No fun at all.

Short answer? Yes. Because it's boring. No fun at all.

Why do so many people assume that all of the fun in this game is tied up with throwing dice across the table? Why can't a cat-and-mouse game of careful positioning be just as enjoyable?