The Y-wing player could have forced the engagement, but would have been at a disadvantage for doing so. The A-wing player could have forced the engagement, but would have been at a disadvantage for doing so. Both players were "stalling" equally - refusing to engage unless they had the advantage.

NEITHER player had a plan to win by killing the opponent. The A-wing player was up against the time limit, and the Y-wing player was up against his opponent not being a total moron who'd yell LEROOOOY JENKIIIIIINS! and charge into certain doom. Neither had a viable plan for winning the game by destroying the other's ships.

Both had choices. Neither was willing to hand the game to their opponent by making a dumb move.

Here's a simple question: If he wanted to, could the Y-wing player have engaged his opponent by spreading out his Y-wings for greater coverage? I'm almost certain I could have. But he chose not to. BOTH players made choices that produced the stalemate. But only one got whiny about it, and only one is drawing a level of completely unfounded insult from you.

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.

with 3 of those on the board I dont see how the y-wing player wasnt shooting at him the whole time...

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.

and you are missing the point again ...

there are explicit time related victory conditions, if FFG would share your view the only designed game objective would be total annihilation they would have thrown out all the relative/time based ways to win - and would have in one sweep thrown avoiding action as valid tactic, but they have chosen not to.

...in other words the "tournament x-wing" game is designed with time based victory in mind

if it's done well is another question

don't forget 2 limitations to the ywing shooting. only the ion cannon can hit 360, which only has a range of 2 (the side of the card closest to the y). The primary weapons can only fire in the forward arc, but can fire to range 3.

Here's the setup: We were running an informal mini-tournament...

I imagine 20 pages isn't quite the response you expected, eh?

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.

You know what, a wings and interceptors weren't part of the core rules either. Admit it, you only ever play with one xwing and two ties.

Seriously, straw, cheap, straw, hyperbole. Misdirection, heck back on page 11 you claimed to know the intent of the developers.

I'm done with you, you are absolutely lost to reason. If I should ever find you as a TO at an event I will go get coffee instead. You are that level of always wrong.

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.

1) THE A-WING PLAYER DID NOT RESORT TO STALLING, all he did was fly around further away from the Y-wings

2) LOOK AT THE PICTURE, HOW IN THE HECK IS THE A-WING GOING TO BE ABLE TO AVOID THAT LARGE AN AOE FROM THE Y-WING TURRETS? X3!!!

A little bit of me feels that iPeregrine could have been the Y-wing player on that fateful day

A little bit of me feels that iPeregrine could have been the Y-wing player on that fateful day

Oh that's priceless. Well played, sir. Well played.

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.

We are definitely in agreement here, and it did take place in a tournament albeit a "casual tournament", an dictionary example of an oxymoron am I right?.

so to jump in here, the y wing player could of kept formation and still got some shots on the awing player by simply running through the asteroid field. Im not saying neither of them could of successfully done it, but it is a valid strategy to circle the board until some fool is dumb enough to try to cut through the asteroids at the most opportune time. What the A wing player did was valid because of the asteroid field. Now if this was a 8x8 table you could argue stalling.

Now for a tourny I went to against Khyros. it was the third round and were the only 2 undefeated. I had him dead to rights, but made a ton of mistakes that put him on top. He had an Awing with PTL and I had a tie fighter. There was no way I could take him when he was Focusing and evading every round I had a shot (and saved his focus for defense). So I did what anyone looking to win the tourny would do. I made a series of sharp turns and barrel rolls that kept him at a distance. I forced him to take modified win. I won my next game and took second, he won and took first. If he would of lost his next game, I would of won the tourny. If I knew I didnt have a shot at winning the tournament, I would of quit running and let him have a full win.

Even as I was running he still could get a couple of shots, and my dial was usually set before his. so heres the question if I only have 2 shots (he would keep us out of range 1) and is forcing me to lose the game because I cant damage him, is that unfair? As a result of him doing that, is it unfair the only chance I had at winning the tourny was avoiding contact? If there was no chance at winning the tourny, would it be unfair?

I had no idea if we had 5 minutes left, or an hour, I was just running hoping to out live my opponent.

I would also like to point out that Y wings have guns, that shoot at range 3, may not be optimal, but if your doing a chase, YOU WILL GET A SHOT cutting through the center of the board

1) THE A-WING PLAYER DID NOT RESORT TO STALLING, all he did was fly around further away from the Y-wings

You do realize that the OP clearly admits that they flew away with the intent of reaching the time limit, right? That's textbook stalling, the only debate is whether stalling is poor sportsmanship or not.

A little bit of me feels that iPeregrine could have been the Y-wing player on that fateful day

The thought did cross my mind, I just assumed he himself lost a game he felt he could win, but his opponent watched the clock and got inventive and won.

Anybody here remember Ender's Game? (I'm talking the book specifically not the movie, although the battle I am talking about is in the movie I think) Dragon Army kept getting things stacked against them till it was 2v1 and they only won by keeping the objective in mind rather than going for the "total destruction of all enemy forces".

The Y-wing player could have forced the engagement, but would have been at a disadvantage for doing so. The A-wing player could have forced the engagement, but would have been at a disadvantage for doing so. Both players were "stalling" equally - refusing to engage unless they had the advantage.

Except the point you keep missing is that, given an infinite amount of time, the y-wing player is almost guaranteed to corner the a-wings and force an engagement. If they continue with their current strategy the game will end with one side's ships being destroyed. The a-wing player, on the other hand, has no such hope of victory. As long as they continue their current strategy they will never conclude the game, and their only hope of victory is wasting enough time that they reach the time limit. Why is it so hard to see the difference here?

NEITHER player had a plan to win by killing the opponent.

No, the y-wing player had a plan for winning by ship destruction. The fact that they were lacking and skill, failed to execute it properly, and quit the game in frustration doesn't mean that their plan didn't exist.

The thought did cross my mind, I just assumed he himself lost a game he felt he could win, but his opponent watched the clock and got inventive and won.

Nope, not even close. The few timed games I've played have all concluded normally within the time limit. Don't confuse my hatred of cheaters with some ridiculous obsession with avenging a shameful loss.

don't forget 2 limitations to the ywing shooting. only the ion cannon can hit 360, which only has a range of 2 (the side of the card closest to the y). The primary weapons can only fire in the forward arc, but can fire to range 3.

Ion turret range on 3x3 board

The few timed games I've played have all concluded normally within the time limit.

That probably explains why you have difficulty understanding what stalling is, during a tournament.

By your own admission you have hardly played any timed games, to have suitable experience with the format.

All of my timed games have concluded normally within the time limit. Some have lasted 5 minutes (due to a blow-out concession), others have lasted 75 minutes.

don't forget 2 limitations to the ywing shooting. only the ion cannon can hit 360, which only has a range of 2 (the side of the card closest to the y). The primary weapons can only fire in the forward arc, but can fire to range 3.

Ion turret range on 3x3 board

Yes... I know... I referred to the image...

You do realize that the OP clearly admits that they flew away with the intent of reaching the time limit, right? That's textbook stalling, the only debate is whether stalling is poor sportsmanship or not.

Let me clarify something for you if you read the OP's post he does not say he is playing for the draw he is giving the opponent the choice. The choice is akin to in football in a 2 minute drill situation. Its 4th down, do you punt conceding defeat? (What the Y-wing player did) or do you go for it on 4th down gambling on your ability to out play your opponent?(Breaking Formation). Stalling in this case would be the defense preventing the offense from getting to the line of scrimmage to snap the ball. Such as http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9676982/wisconsin-badgers-fall-arizona-state-sun-devils-bizarre-final-play (In game this would be akin to taking excessive time to place dials and choose actions/targets). What you are saying about flying around in circles is akin to an offense complaining about the defense tackling a player inbounds to keep the clock running rather than letting the player stop the clock, or an offense running the ball/taking knees to work the clock and avoid a turnover to let the other team come back.

From Dictionary.com Cheat: Verb: to violate rules or regulations.

I feel we covered this before where everything the OP did was legal under the rules, so therefore he is not a cheater, and frankly I am starting to find your twisting the meanings of words that have been well established to be offensive to myself an almost every other speaker of the English language (the notable exceptions are Miley Cyrus/Justin Bieber, nobody likes them)

You do realize that the OP clearly admits that they flew away with the intent of reaching the time limit, right? That's textbook stalling, the only debate is whether stalling is poor sportsmanship or not.

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.

Let me clarify something for you if you read the OP's post he does not say he is playing for the draw he is giving the opponent the choice. The choice is akin to in football in a 2 minute drill situation. Its 4th down, do you punt conceding defeat? (What the Y-wing player did) or do you go for it on 4th down gambling on your ability to out play your opponent?(Breaking Formation). Stalling in this case would be the defense preventing the offense from getting to the line of scrimmage to snap the ball. Such as http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9676982/wisconsin-badgers-fall-arizona-state-sun-devils-bizarre-final-play (In game this would be akin to taking excessive time to place dials and choose actions/targets). What you are saying about flying around in circles is akin to an offense complaining about the defense tackling a player inbounds to keep the clock running rather than letting the player stop the clock, or an offense running the ball/taking knees to work the clock and avoid a turnover to let the other team come back.

Be careful, you are talking sports in the lands of table top gaming.

You do realize that the OP clearly admits that they flew away with the intent of reaching the time limit, right? That's textbook stalling, the only debate is whether stalling is poor sportsmanship or not.

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.

Let me clarify something for you if you read the OP's post he does not say he is playing for the draw he is giving the opponent the choice. The choice is akin to in football in a 2 minute drill situation. Its 4th down, do you punt conceding defeat? (What the Y-wing player did) or do you go for it on 4th down gambling on your ability to out play your opponent?(Breaking Formation). Stalling in this case would be the defense preventing the offense from getting to the line of scrimmage to snap the ball. Such as http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9676982/wisconsin-badgers-fall-arizona-state-sun-devils-bizarre-final-play (In game this would be akin to taking excessive time to place dials and choose actions/targets). What you are saying about flying around in circles is akin to an offense complaining about the defense tackling a player inbounds to keep the clock running rather than letting the player stop the clock, or an offense running the ball/taking knees to work the clock and avoid a turnover to let the other team come back.

Be careful, you are talking sports in the lands of table top gaming.

How dare I compare one popular game involving strategy and freak occurrences to another

The choice is akin to in football in a 2 minute drill situation.

Except this isn't a good analogy for two reasons:

1) Football was designed to be a timed game, and the clock is integrated into the rules. X-Wing, on the other hand, isn't. It's designed to be played until one side is completely destroyed, and the time limit is an awkward addition that only exists because tournaments need to keep a reliable schedule.

2) Football has the play clock to limit how much time you can spend without actually playing the game. Avoiding combat to reach the time limit would be much less of a problem if both players had chess clocks and the a-wing player automatically lost the game when their time ran out.

You do realize that the OP clearly admits that they flew away with the intent of reaching the time limit, right? That's textbook stalling, the only debate is whether stalling is poor sportsmanship or not.

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.

Let me clarify something for you if you read the OP's post he does not say he is playing for the draw he is giving the opponent the choice. The choice is akin to in football in a 2 minute drill situation. Its 4th down, do you punt conceding defeat? (What the Y-wing player did) or do you go for it on 4th down gambling on your ability to out play your opponent?(Breaking Formation). Stalling in this case would be the defense preventing the offense from getting to the line of scrimmage to snap the ball. Such as http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9676982/wisconsin-badgers-fall-arizona-state-sun-devils-bizarre-final-play (In game this would be akin to taking excessive time to place dials and choose actions/targets). What you are saying about flying around in circles is akin to an offense complaining about the defense tackling a player inbounds to keep the clock running rather than letting the player stop the clock, or an offense running the ball/taking knees to work the clock and avoid a turnover to let the other team come back.

Be careful, you are talking sports in the lands of table top gaming.

How dare I compare one popular game involving strategy and freak occurrences to another

I'm afraid my understanding of the reference went out of the window, when I realized that the "football" wasn't soccer.

never got around to seeing a complete game, and piecing rules together from the bits and pieces shown in movies and tv isn't easy.....