Yeah it may be legitimate, but is this a fun list to fly against? I don't think so. It's a waste of time and taxing my patience.

This is a point that keeps coming up. Some people have this idea that it is somehow the opponent's responsibility to make sure you have fun, which it is not. That is not to say that players should not try to foster a friendly environment free of drama and hostility (to which end a sore loser complaining about his opponent's supposed lack of sportsmanship certainly does not contribute), but players are free to build and play lists as they desire within the game's rules.

Consider some other builds that have been mentioned: dual Falcons, Falcon fortresses, Lambda Fortresses, etc. Or even the Rebel Convoy build, 2x y-wing with ion and 2x Outer Rim Smuggler, which had some success last year and lots of people were talking about how happy they were to see nontraditional builds performing well. These builds are top candidates for making the match "not fun" for many opponents. Should they be banned too? How exactly do you phrase a ban on "unfun" builds or tactics?

And again, this tactic is not even an issue. It is not common in the tournament scene and most players don't seem to even consider it an effective tactic. The only situation where an idea like "this game is really good, except X ruins it. Let's ban X" is even a remotely valid concept would be if there really was one specific thing that was obviously "ruining" the game. For those familiar, consider the video game Super Smash Bros, a game series which has all sorts of design issues but the community liked the game so much that they managed to form a consensus and ban a large portion of the game's content to shape it into something that still manages to support a large competitive scene years after its release. X-wing is not even close to this kind of situation.

But I still think another issue here is whether or not it's acceptable to build a list to be as hyper-evasive as possible after downing the first 12 points of enemy ships.

I'm sorry but in tournament games at least, it's an entirely acceptable approach to take!

Unlike the la la land that the trolls around here seem to live in, the time limit in games is part of the victory condition criteria that exists (and it's funny that they bemoan that artificial limitation, but not the one that a limited 3x3 playing area presents), total annihilation of ships is not part of the victory criteria and FFG explicitly encourages defensive play - which (again for the millionth time) is not the same as stalling.

While I respect your opinion (unlike the trolls), the implied double standards in these types of comments really surprises me for what is supposed to be a strategy game.

As someone who primarily enjoys the play style of all interceptor lists, it would be easy for me to state that my definition of fun is the outflanking and backstabbing opportunities that these ships are great at.

Therefore, if I took the same approach as those making comments such as these, I should be bemoaning and complaining about people that play all Falcon and/or turret lists, shouldn't I? They take away my prime motivation for enjoying the game, don't they?

But no, that's not what I do - instead, I try to better myself at this strategy game. Consider options, improve my play style. Do I focus fire the Falcons/turreted ships or avoid them? I still don't have any easy answers to these questions, but it's all part of the fun.

And I'll happily concede that it may not be the most effective strategy to take (at least in it's most purest 'just get the 12 points and flee' form), but it is possible. PTL'd interceptors with stealth devices are amazingly hard to hit once they decide to run.

What normally happens is that I'd get to a certain point in the game having done X amount of damage to the enemy (usually suffering a fair amount of damage myself) with Y amount of time left, realise that I'm ahead and decide to go completely defensive.

Were I to do anything else, I'd be playing someone else's game for them whilst simultaneously encouraging the growth of a less diversive play style for the game as a whole - and I'll be buggered if I'm going to do that to myself or to X-Wing.

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.

1. One could argue that it isn't that the original objective was just to score as many points and the time was something added when competitive play was introduced (much like X-wing)

2. The play clock would be similar to the more commonly accepted definition of stalling (not your anything that doesn't involve rolling dice is stalling definition) of players taking to long to place dials and taking excessive time to determine actions. And now who is using bad analogies, a Delay of game penalty is not an auto-forfeit like you are suggesting you wish it was, heck, it is not even a personal foul (15 yd penalty and automatic first down) its a 5 yard incidental or "warning" penalty

This is what I imagine the game looked like:

I'm not sure where the problem is. Like many others I fail to see how you can truly avoid another player for a game on a 3 x 3.

You may have to split up and corall him or hunt him down and that may be less than advantageous but he doesn't just disapear from the table.

Are ships used as blockers to limit actions unsportsmanlike? You're tying your oppyonent up giving him more problems than solutions, thats a tactic.

For the fly by that the OP talked about, if you saw the setup looking like it was going to this a person could fly apart rather than in a formation giving a better "net" or fly with ships in depth. This is a game of problem solving so unless you just couldn't spin your dials faster than glacial drift I don't see the problem.

I am really thinking we should start a pool on how long it takes this thread to get locked who ever gets the correct time gets 4 A-wings, whoever guesses the correct amount of pages/posts gets 4 Y-wings

(Yes I am being ridiculous and because at its heart this is starting to get ridiculous and at this point nothing productive is happening so we should just start having fun with this thread)

Yeah, I said my peace last night. but I might just keep watching for kicks.

Yeah it may be legitimate, but is this a fun list to fly against? I don't think so. It's a waste of time and taxing my patience.

This is a point that keeps coming up. Some people have this idea that it is somehow the opponent's responsibility to make sure you have fun, which it is not.

-This may/may not have anything to do with the OP so please don't think I am remarking on that issue directly

This is the main idea I have a problem with (I actually don't mean to pick on you Effenhoog). I'm just trying to be as clear as possible). In a multiplayer game where you play your opponent face to face, you ABSOLUTELY have some responsibility to make sure your opponent has some fun. To think otherwise means you should probably go up to your opponent and tell him straight "Can we play? Just so you know, I don't care if you have any fun." Does that make the issue clear? Yes, it's almost impossible to make sure every person you will ever play has fun but that doesn't mean you don't try; like everything else when you play in a multiplayer game a lot of that relies on communication and being reasonable.

There's been some complaints about 40k over the past couple posts, but I've found in our area it's this "I don't care about your fun" that has hurt the game more than anything (and GW seems to be condoning it with their releases).

When it comes to tourney's you shouldn't apply "play to win" to everyone. 25 people can't reasonably enter a tournament and everyone one of them expect to win. People enter for different reasons. Some people just want games, some just want to have fun, and at my most recent tournament a father and son just wanted to spend the day together. Applying "play to win" tourney mentality to these players is just as unfair as people in this thread have said it was unfair to call some moves beardy even though they are allowed by the rules. Ultimately the key word for the phrase for "play in a tourney" is the word "play (take part in an activity for amusement)." There's pages and pages in this thread about how its unreasonable to apply sportsmanship to everything when its just as unreasonable to apply "play to win" to every game. The only universal value is that everyone want to "play" and have fun.

Yeah, I said my peace last night. but I might just keep watching for kicks.

forget it.

forget it.

Now that's a sentiment I can get behind.

-This may/may not have anything to do with the OP so please don't think I am remarking on that issue directly

This is the main idea I have a problem with (I actually don't mean to pick on you Effenhoog). I'm just trying to be as clear as possible). In a multiplayer game where you play your opponent face to face, you ABSOLUTELY have some responsibility to make sure your opponent has some fun. To think otherwise means you should probably go up to your opponent and tell him straight "Can we play? Just so you know, I don't care if you have any fun." Does that make the issue clear? Yes, it's almost impossible to make sure every person you will ever play has fun but that doesn't mean you don't try; like everything else when you play in a multiplayer game a lot of that relies on communication and being reasonable.

There's been some complaints about 40k over the past couple posts, but I've found in our area it's this "I don't care about your fun" that has hurt the game more than anything (and GW seems to be condoning it with their releases).

When it comes to tourney's you shouldn't apply "play to win" to everyone. 25 people can't reasonably enter a tournament and everyone one of them expect to win. People enter for different reasons. Some people just want games, some just want to have fun, and at my most recent tournament a father and son just wanted to spend the day together. Applying "play to win" tourney mentality to these players is just as unfair as people in this thread have said it was unfair to call some moves beardy even though they are allowed by the rules. Ultimately the key word for the phrase for "play in a tourney" is the word "play (take part in an activity for amusement)." There's pages and pages in this thread about how its unreasonable to apply sportsmanship to everything when its just as unreasonable to apply "play to win" to every game. The only universal value is that everyone want to "play" and have fun.

I'm not trying to say that people should have an attitude of "I don't care if you have fun." It's more of a "This is a tournament, so I am going to do my best to beat you and I hope you do the same to me so we can have a good match. I realize this may mean that one of us does may not have as much fun, by being soundly defeated by a strategy or build we weren't prepared for or able to adapt to, or by simply being outplayed by a superior opponent and wiped off the board in just a few turns."

There is nothing wrong with casual play or casual players joining a tournament and doing the best they can even if they know they have little hope of winning. That said, they should know what they are getting into and have the respect for the more competitive players to accept it and not expect other plays to "play down" to their level just to make for a more even match. Now, IF you know the opponent is new or significantly less skilled, and IF your build has a variety of effective ways to be played, and you know that playing a certain way will give your opponent a better match but still allow you to win even if the dice turn against you, then by all means you could "be nice" and try it out, but that's a lot of stuff to gauge before/during a match and no one should expect you to do so.

I myself am not a super competitive player and I don't use the best builds and tactics, partly because of my own mediocre skill and partly because I have more "fun" with ships and builds that just happen to be less viable in a competitive setting. When I join a tournament, I know what I am getting into and I have the respect for the more competitive players to not expect them to hold back, whatever that may mean for my gaming experience. Tournaments exist for the sake of competition, otherwise we would all just play casual matches and there wouldn't be any tournaments.

The other player could of gone to the TO if he felt he the other guy was stalling.

But the problem is, even if the person playing the A-Wing came right out and said he was going to run for until time, the TO really shouldn't step in.

A TO can't tell someone how to play, or stop someone from using what might be viewed as a cheap tactic. The only time they should step in is when the rules are being broken.

Stalling is not simply avoiding combat, it's taking an excessive amount of time to finish setting your dials or planing actions. Flying without engaging is not and never really can be considered stalling. If that becomes the rule, then you'll see even fewer viable lists out there.

The other issue here is as many of us have pointed out. The person flying the Y-Wings could of quite easily of trapped the A-Wings in those 6 or so rounds if he was willing to adapt to what was going on.

Another thought...

There's a pretty big difference between 'unsportsmanlike conduct' and cheating. While some might be able to make and argument that what the OP did is unsportsmanlike, that's a long ways away from what some are claiming as being cheating.

Unsportsmanlike is part of the rules. It's not about cheating, its about conduct.

Part of the conduct is about

Mature & Considerate:

Does that sound like its okay to run away from actual gameplay for up to 75 minutes?

Intentionally stalling a game for time:

Does that sound like its okay to run away from actual gameplay for up to 75 minutes?

Treating an opponent with lack of courtesy or respect:

Does that sound like its okay to run away from actual gameplay for up to 75 minutes?

Last line, The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's going to go back and forth, with both sides opinions and supportive statements. It seems there is more hostility in this actual forum posts then anything felt during OP match.

P.S. there is no specific FFG X-Wing Miniatures definition of stalling. So your "stalling" by being slow @ maneuver dial choice, or placing tokens, picking your nose before every move. Is different, than intentionally avoiding any combative, which is near sole purpose of a "Dogfight" definition, up to 75 minutes (standard time allowance for tourney) could be considered stalling.

A-Wing could have flanked part of his group to stay just in range 3 and picked at. Even w/ 360 turret, y wing has to maneuver @ some point .. roughly 2-4 turns or run off board.

In a multiplayer game where you play your opponent face to face, you ABSOLUTELY have some responsibility to make sure your opponent has some fun. To think otherwise means you should probably go up to your opponent and tell him straight "Can we play? Just so you know, I don't care if you have any fun."

Not really. I have a responsibility to show my opponent respect and be polite, but when making tactical decisions in-game it is my responsibility to make him as miserable as possible. If I can get him into a situation where he has to choose between two bad situations (like, say, dividing his forces or losing), I'm going to take it, and I would expect him to do the same if the situation was reversed. To do otherwise would be showing your opponent a great deal of disrespect.

A-Wing could have flanked part of his group to stay just in range 3 and picked at. Even w/ 360 turret, y wing has to maneuver @ some point .. roughly 2-4 turns or run off board.

A Word from the Developers

Greetings, pilots!

We made two small but significant changes to the 100-point Dogfight tournament rules. First, we made full wins significantly easier to achieve. Under the new rules, a player only needs to destroy at least 12 squad points (the lowest squad point cost of a single ship) more than his or her opponent, which means players no longer have to build their lists with total annihilation in mind and can opt for a slightly more tactical, defensive game if they wish. Second, we gave players with lower squad point totals the ability to choose whether they want initiative or not. Some lists benefit from having initiative, whereas other lists are stronger when opposing ships move first. Now, players can tailor their lists to their own liking without having to worry that a lower squad point total will guarantee that they have initiative.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4750

There is no reason you should be continuing to debate this. The developers have been very clear, get 12 points and fly strategically is an ENCOURAGED strategy.

Interesting. So, FFG doesn't clearly define stalling, but people should be punished for this ambiguous behavior anyways. FFG does clearly define the intentions, limitations, and rules of a tournament level event, and yet people feel that this definition somehow defies the spirit of the game - a spirit that apparently only they can perceive, and which completely contradicts what FFG themselves have said on the matter.

The other player could of gone to the TO if he felt he the other guy was stalling.

But the problem is, even if the person playing the A-Wing came right out and said he was going to run for until time, the TO really shouldn't step in.

A TO can't tell someone how to play, or stop someone from using what might be viewed as a cheap tactic. The only time they should step in is when the rules are being broken.

Stalling is not simply avoiding combat, it's taking an excessive amount of time to finish setting your dials or planing actions. Flying without engaging is not and never really can be considered stalling. If that becomes the rule, then you'll see even fewer viable lists out there.

The other issue here is as many of us have pointed out. The person flying the Y-Wings could of quite easily of trapped the A-Wings in those 6 or so rounds if he was willing to adapt to what was going on.

Another thought...

There's a pretty big difference between 'unsportsmanlike conduct' and cheating. While some might be able to make and argument that what the OP did is unsportsmanlike, that's a long ways away from what some are claiming as being cheating.

Unsportsmanlike is part of the rules. It's not about cheating, its about conduct.

Part of the conduct is about

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Mature & Considerate:

Does that sound like its okay to run away from actual gameplay for up to 75 minutes?

Intentionally stalling a game for time:

Does that sound like its okay to run away from actual gameplay for up to 75 minutes?

Treating an opponent with lack of courtesy or respect:

Does that sound like its okay to run away from actual gameplay for up to 75 minutes?

Last line, The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's going to go back and forth, with both sides opinions and supportive statements. It seems there is more hostility in this actual forum posts then anything felt during OP match.

P.S. there is no specific FFG X-Wing Miniatures definition of stalling. So your "stalling" by being slow @ maneuver dial choice, or placing tokens, picking your nose before every move. Is different, than intentionally avoiding any combative, which is near sole purpose of a "Dogfight" definition, up to 75 minutes (standard time allowance for tourney) could be considered stalling.

A-Wing could have flanked part of his group to stay just in range 3 and picked at. Even w/ 360 turret, y wing has to maneuver @ some point .. roughly 2-4 turns or run off board.

Playing evasively is not stalling the game, provided you are playing at a reasonable place. You after all are still playing at the point and your opponent has the ability to tactically redress the situation. If a player is slow playing in order to run the clock out, then yes they are stalling, but that is not the situation being discussed here.

Additionally you are erroneously defining actual game-play. No where does it state you have to aggressively pursue your opponent to play the game. A victory condition is given (kill more points then your opponent in an allotted time), and at times aggressively pursuing an opponents ships is not conductive to the victory condition. This is supported by FFGs own statements and rules adjustments on the matter, they recognize and have encouraged the ability to play in a defensive manner. If an opponent concludes that is someone showing them a lack of respect based on legal, they aren't reasonable so their conclusion is moot.

TOs are given wide latitude in the rules for every game, as rules can never cover every contingency they will face. Just because a TO can deem anything they want unsportsmanlike doesn't mean that they should or that what they will deem as unsportsmanlike is actually reasonable.

In a multiplayer game where you play your opponent face to face, you ABSOLUTELY have some responsibility to make sure your opponent has some fun. To think otherwise means you should probably go up to your opponent and tell him straight "Can we play? Just so you know, I don't care if you have any fun."

Not really. I have a responsibility to show my opponent respect and be polite, but when making tactical decisions in-game it is my responsibility to make him as miserable as possible. If I can get him into a situation where he has to choose between two bad situations (like, say, dividing his forces or losing), I'm going to take it, and I would expect him to do the same if the situation was reversed. To do otherwise would be showing your opponent a great deal of disrespect.

Oddly, our statements aren't really at odds. You talk about making your opponent make some tough choices. How does that preclude from making sure your opponent has some fun in a game you are playing together? As stated in my original post on this matter, its odd to think its okay to just refuse to acknowledge your opponents feelings at all and play him in a way where you give absolutely no thought to their enjoyment. I'm a veteran of GW games, and as pointed out in several threads, its this style of play (whether endorsed or not by the company through rules and models) that has really hurts the playability of the game (games are routinely decided at the top of turn 2 followed by 1.5 hours of going through the motions because people will "break" the rules to make the most powerful list possible which is not necessarily wrong per se does take a specific type of person to play against to be any fun; PS GW suffered almost 25% reduction in profits last quarter and most people in my area think this, and prices, is why).

If we take a look at your statement further, you infer and assume what your opponent should be given excessively hard tactical decisions because you believe to do otherwise would be a "sign of disrespect." In a roundabout way you are caring about his enjoyment and how he feels about the game because you don't want to disrespect him. You just assume fun means mental tactical sparring to the highest degree but that comes from your own personal assumption of what this game is about and what your opponent should be doing. In reality, this thread is full of people pushing their views of the game on each other, but no matter whether you're a strict rules person, or a laid back casual rules person, the idea of sportsmanship is tied to how you interact with people. The only universal value is that the game should be fun and since two people play the game, it should be fun for both of them.

You can't hold the rulebook up as a shield for bad sportsmanship. One person thinks you aren't fun to play it might be a fluke. If the majority of people at a flgs think you are a bad sport and no fun to play, it doesn't matter how many rules you can quote or whether you follow them to the letter, the reality is, in that flgs, you are a bad sport.

Oddly, our statements aren't really at odds. You talk about making your opponent make some tough choices. How does that preclude from making sure your opponent has some fun in a game you are playing together? As stated in my original post on this matter, its odd to think its okay to just refuse to acknowledge your opponents feelings at all and play him in a way where you give absolutely no thought to their enjoyment.

If we take a look at your statement further, you infer and assume what your opponent should be given excessively hard tactical decisions because you believe to do otherwise would be a "sign of disrespect." In a roundabout way you are caring about his enjoyment and how he feels about the game because you don't want to disrespect him. You just assume fun means mental tactical sparring to the highest degree but that comes from your own personal assumption of what this game is about and what your opponent should be doing. In reality, this thread is full of people pushing their views of the game on each other, but no matter whether you're a strict rules person, or a laid back casual rules person, the idea of sportsmanship is tied to how you interact with people. The only universal value is that the game should be fun and since two people play the game, it should be fun for both of them.

I disagree, or at least I'm not quite understanding what you mean. Neither player should be expected to play sub-optimally to cover for his opponent's mistakes, whether those mistakes be in maneuvering, target selection, or squad building. Nor should either player be expected to change his view on what's fun in the game to suit his opponent. Just play to the best of your ability, and the rest should take care of itself.

You can't hold the rulebook up as a shield for bad sportsmanship. One person thinks you aren't fun to play it might be a fluke. If the majority of people at a flgs think you are a bad sport and no fun to play, it doesn't matter how many rules you can quote or whether you follow them to the letter, the reality is, in that flgs, you are a bad sport.

And you can't hold up sportsmanship as a shield to rules you don't like. There's no connection at all between what tactics you employ in the game and how good a sport you are. I can provide my opponent with no chance for victory, send his ships flying off the edge when he reveals an illegal red turn, and force him into horrible tactical situations, and still be a good sport all the while. If my opponent reacts to my tactics by attacking my character, that says more about his level of sportsmanship than mine.

It's pretty clear this had turned into a debate between the people want to keep the game fun for everyone, and the people primarily concerned with winning. Neither side will convert the other.

Oddly, our statements aren't really at odds. You talk about making your opponent make some tough choices. How does that preclude from making sure your opponent has some fun in a game you are playing together? As stated in my original post on this matter, its odd to think its okay to just refuse to acknowledge your opponents feelings at all and play him in a way where you give absolutely no thought to their enjoyment.If we take a look at your statement further, you infer and assume what your opponent should be given excessively hard tactical decisions because you believe to do otherwise would be a "sign of disrespect." In a roundabout way you are caring about his enjoyment and how he feels about the game because you don't want to disrespect him. You just assume fun means mental tactical sparring to the highest degree but that comes from your own personal assumption of what this game is about and what your opponent should be doing. In reality, this thread is full of people pushing their views of the game on each other, but no matter whether you're a strict rules person, or a laid back casual rules person, the idea of sportsmanship is tied to how you interact with people. The only universal value is that the game should be fun and since two people play the game, it should be fun for both of them.

I disagree, or at least I'm not quite understanding what you mean. Neither player should be expected to play sub-optimally to cover for his opponent's mistakes, whether those mistakes be in maneuvering, target selection, or squad building. Nor should either player be expected to change his view on what's fun in the game to suit his opponent. Just play to the best of your ability, and the rest should take care of itself.

You can't hold the rulebook up as a shield for bad sportsmanship. One person thinks you aren't fun to play it might be a fluke. If the majority of people at a flgs think you are a bad sport and no fun to play, it doesn't matter how many rules you can quote or whether you follow them to the letter, the reality is, in that flgs, you are a bad sport.

And you can't hold up sportsmanship as a shield to rules you don't like. There's no connection at all between what tactics you employ in the game and how good a sport you are. I can provide my opponent with no chance for victory, send his ships flying off the edge when he reveals an illegal red turn, and force him into horrible tactical situations, and still be a good sport all the while. If my opponent reacts to my tactics by attacking my character, that says more about his level of sportsmanship than mine.

I wasn't going to jump back into this discussion because everything has been said, but your last paragraph is too good not to acknowledge.

Nevermind.

To all those calling some of us heartless fun killing game ruiners, bah. It is not in my power to cause or eliminate your fun. The fun you have will hinge on the attitude you bring to the game. If you can't smile and congratulate someone who has flown rings around you or laugh with them about dice failures, that is a reflection on you.

Demanding that someone play at less than their best so you can have fun in a tournament setting is poor sportsmanship. Flying well and winning graciously, even if also overwhelmingly, is not.

It's pretty clear this had turned into a debate between the people want to keep the game fun for everyone, and the people primarily concerned with winning. Neither side will convert the other.

Yeah because that's exactly peoples stance

Seriously, that post (and others like it) is exactly why you are called a troll.

I'd imagine you also think the player with the Y-wing is being super unsportsmanlike because plenty of players don't think it's fun to deal with that many turrets or ion tokens.

There is no reason you should be continuing to debate this. The developers have been very clear, get 12 points and fly strategically is an ENCOURAGED strategy.

You are assuming way too much from that statement. I, and any reasonable person, would read that as "don't worry about being unable to get a full win if you ever take evade actions instead of target locks, or don't joust every turn", not "get a 12 point advantage and stall until you reach the time limit".