You out-played your opponent. Well done. Maybe they'll get you next time with a Lambda fortress or Han Shot First or a TIE swarm -- all of which have been derided as unsportsmanlike by someone at some point.

The meta will take care of itself, and sour grapes are a thing. It's not a popularity contest, so go ahead and do everything you can within the rules to win -- that's what competition is all about. If you strike upon a particularly effective strategy, others will adjust, or they'll get used to watching you win.

The play area is only a small 91cm x 91 cm, even if the Awing were to fly the fastest possible maneuver + boost, it would eventually need to slow down and do turns. Furthermore, its not like the Ywing doesn't have a forward 3-4, nor is Engine Upgrade restricted against Ywings. Heck, the Ywing's primary weapons extend out to range 3!

This needs to be emphasized more. The Y-Wing commander could have absolutely run down the A-Wings to some degree, trapping them in a corner or at least getting some potshots off. They may not be full power range 1 or ioned shots, but that's ok. If the A-Wing's are running away they aren't shooting back.

This tactic is in no way cheap. In many ways, it is suboptimal--giving up attacks for a chance at safety. The Y-Wing commanders inability to exploit this is on him, not on the choice of tactic.

The loss is definitely on his head not yours.

Get that hoorah semperfi crap out of here. This is a board game, not the military. This wasn't about forcing the opponent to adapt, this was about being a chicken and hiding from the opponent until he gave up. This wasn't about playing the game, this was OP avoiding playing the rest of his game to get a cheap win. Terrible attitude, terrible player, and toxic to the community. Word will get around if he keeps doing it, and people won't play with him anymore unless forced to for an event.

Dude, take it down a notch.

I have never been in the military, and I know this is a game, so chill out.

I was quoting an line from Heartbreak Ridge staring Clint Eastwood (Thats him in the picture) that pertains to a particular stategy that he employed being called "unfair."

When your opponent does something unexpected, you "Improvise. Overcome. Adapt" instead of crying foul.

Calm down.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

Honestly, you played by the rules

But, if you ran around avoiding contact for 30 minutes and slow playing ur maneuvers...you played as your opponent described and I say this because you come to play a game, not hide for 30 minutes, you can do that at home if you want

I play A-Wings about 80% of the time and the other is a B Wing or mixed A/B list....I dont run, its not the purpose of the game

If you played like that in my group you would probably get 1 or 2 games again and if demonstrated that mentality again, you would most likely have a very hard time finding games again

So yes you played by the rules but its highly dependent on how you did so whether or not it was sportsmanlike, as one of the de facto leaders of my local group I would talk to you on the side and express the concerns the group will have with you.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

I've seen this talked about before regarding Interceptors vs. turret equipped Y-Wings. There the Y-Wing player was whining about it being "unfair" because the Interceptor refused to engage yet that is a complete lie. The problem REAL problem the Y-Wing player had is that the highly maneuverable squad wisely REFUSED to play its game. Someone thought that if unlimited time was available the Y-Wing would eventually win but that is far from certain. With unlimited time the maneuverable ships may find another chance to pounce and retreat and eventually win the game with hit and fade tactics.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

Well played sir. You had a strategy and it worked. Those that think this is a "jerk move" or is unsportsmanlike just don't like that you're forcing them to play outside of their play style. They are truly the ones with an unsportsman attitude. I personally would have broken up my remaining Ys and forced a fight. Champions adopt to a situation.

Keep doing what you do!

That isn't where the issue lies. It comes from the attitude such a strategy portrays. Play like that will drive people away from the organized game environment and harms the local community. It's about the fact tournaments are still meant to be friendly affairs, and the choice to run away is an antisocial move.

I'm going to call BS on this one. The play area is 3x3. You can't run forever and you can be cornered. His opponent refused to split up his remaining Y-wings in-order to do this. The A-wings didn't need to take any chances... why would they? The ball is in the Y-wings court. Jousting is not the only way to play this game. Nor is flying in formation(s). Adapt, survive, and win. If you refuse to adapt and change your strategy, even in the face of defeat, you're going to lose a lot of games. Go in with a plan, but be ready to change your plan. This is also a part of the game!

If his opponent broke up his formation and spread out he would have had a shot at atleast one A-wing. He could have then converged on that A-wing and destroyed it and repeated the process, but he didn't. He didn't adapt to what was happening on the board. Ion turrets are as close to a direct counter to A-wings, interceptors, and soon to be phantoms are you are going to get. The OP specifically said he did what he did, because it would either break up the formation of Y-wings making them easier to deal with or he would win. His opponent chose not to break up his formation and conceded because he couldn't get a shot. Should the OP have tried to line up some range 3 shots on the Y-wings its really for him to decide I would have but until rebel aces hits I will stick with interceptors. The A-wing, and interceptors are meant to flank your opponents you can't do that when your opponent is running all turrets, and ion turrets will ruin your day if they hit.

This game is a game all about maneuvering because in a dog-fighting game that's what you do. Its about blocking your opponent to deny actions, arc dodging, avoiding asteroids and using them to your advantage, lining up the most advantageous shots for yourself, and denying your opponent good shots. The game isn't meant to be played in an I line up across from you we proceed straight at each other, fire, and then k-turn and do it all over again kind of fashion, If you just want to joust you can get this experience playing a number of games that aren't x-wing.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

I'd respectfully argue that imposing narrow play styles upon opponents who are well within the rules of the game is actually what is toxic. When a set of rules is established (and in fact, made quite clear by FFG as acceptable), imposing one's own unwritten rules is going to cause conflict.

If players accept a wider range of play styles (provided they are within the rules), the losing player can shake hands and admit defeat, looking to come back with a better list and/or as a better player the next time. Or, at least, they even think about how they can pin four A-wings down with the same list or avoid getting in the same situation again.

Instead, if they blame a play style (or opponent's list) because it was outside of their own personal standard, they aren't learning anything and are adding tension of their own making.

I'm one of the furthest players you'd find from the definition competitive player, even though I like to enter tournaments I play when I can. Mostly, it's because I agree with an above poster who said they like the challenge, but it's an opportunity to play with different people and get a lot of games in a small amount of time. Having fun is more important to me than winning, and I probably would turned my A-wings around or tried a different tactic than the OP, but that doesn't mean I begrudge him his.

Ultimately, it is the job of FFG to create a ruleset for the game and competition that make it fun system to play within. If there's a problem with the ruleset that prevents that, they need to change it. I think they've done a great job, btw, and I agree with others in thinking "playing defensively" is rarely going to be a viable strategy and is certainly not a competitive strategy to enter a tournament with from the start, that is, if that's a concern some have.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

I take this view of playing like Hamish and Wallace in Braveheart. Squish me with a heavy boulder, then do it. Bet you forget about my rock!

What you seemed to have missed is that the OP stated that his opponent chose not to break apart his formation of Y-wings, and therefore, would not try to envelop or enclose the speedy A-wings.

Is that seriously the A-wing players fault?

A-wings are not jousters, they are flankers. The A-wing player played his ships right. The Y-wing player did not. Someone played the game right, and someone did not and lost.

I'll be the voice of dissent here. What you did was rude. Not against the rules, and not wrong. But it is rude to play the run around the map game that early on. It means you're going to be doing so for the next 40+minutes. I get that it's a sound tactical decision, but you're not doing yourself any favors as far as keeping people interested in the game or interested in playing you by making your games boring. Tournaments are social things. The prizes aren't important enough to matter 99% of the time for this kind of play to be socially acceptable during the setting. Be prepared to be the least liked person in your tournament group if you keep this kind of play up.

I fail to see why anyone should have to stick their head in a lion's mouth during a game. If you bring a slow, unmaneuverable list to a tournament then no one should be obligated to play a slow, unmaneuvable style so you can enjoy rolling dice.

My Washington Redskins had a historically sh*tty pass defense last year. How many teams decided to play down to them by running the ball? None. All of their opponents opened up their passing plays and racked up points all season long.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

I take this view of playing like Hamish and Wallace in Braveheart. Squish me with a heavy boulder, then do it. Bet you forget about my rock!

What you seemed to have missed is that the OP stated that his opponent chose not to break apart his formation of Y-wings, and therefore, would not try to envelop or enclose the speedy A-wings.

Is that seriously the A-wing players fault?

A-wings are not jousters, they are flankers. The A-wing player played his ships right. The Y-wing player did not. Someone played the game right, and someone did not and lost.

Again you fail to understand, the OP was avoiding playing the game. He was stalling, running the clock, and this is a problem. If you are unable to understand this, then you may be part of the problem.

You can be an apologist for poor sportsmanship if you like, but don't be shocked when people find you toxic.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

As other's have said, that's exactly what he did. OP presumably chose and placed his dials in a timely manner, moved according to their revelation--in order of pilot skill--and chose actions after each move. He remained within the 3 x 3 play area and had the (potenntially) difficult task of anticipating his opponents in order to avoid being cornered. This is not only playing the game, b but playing the game with a high degree of skill.

No dice were involved, true, but dice are not the core of the game. They are only in the game to govern a particular (if likely) set of circumstances that arises in the course of gameplay. Many rounds of gameplay, even in a jousting match, involve no dice.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

I'd respectfully argue that imposing narrow play styles upon opponents who are well within the rules of the game is actually what is toxic. When a set of rules is established (and in fact, made quite clear by FFG as acceptable), imposing one's own unwritten rules is going to cause conflict.

If players accept a wider range of play styles (provided they are within the rules), the losing player can shake hands and admit defeat, looking to come back with a better list and/or as a better player the next time. Or, at least, they even think about how they can pin four A-wings down with the same list or avoid getting in the same situation again.

Instead, if they blame a play style (or opponent's list) because it was outside of their own personal standard, they aren't learning anything and are adding tension of their own making.

I'm one of the furthest players you'd find from the definition competitive player, even though I like to enter tournaments I play when I can. Mostly, it's because I agree with an above poster who said they like the challenge, but it's an opportunity to play with different people and get a lot of games in a small amount of time. Having fun is more important to me than winning, and I probably would turned my A-wings around or tried a different tactic than the OP, but that doesn't mean I begrudge him his.

Ultimately, it is the job of FFG to create a ruleset for the game and competition that make it fun system to play within. If there's a problem with the ruleset that prevents that, they need to change it. I think they've done a great job, btw, and I agree with others in thinking "playing defensively" is rarely going to be a viable strategy and is certainly not a competitive strategy to enter a tournament with from the start, that is, if that's a concern some have.

Again you people fail to see what the OP did. He stalled/ran the clock, and avoided gameplay. He frustrated his opponent into conceding. If you don't understand why this was wrong, why this is harmful to the community, then you are problematic.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

As other's have said, that's exactly what he did. OP presumably chose and placed his dials in a timely manner, moved according to their revelation--in order of pilot skill--and chose actions after each move. He remained within the 3 x 3 play area and had the (potenntially) difficult task of anticipating his opponents in order to avoid being cornered. This is not only playing the game, b but playing the game with a high degree of skill.

No dice were involved, true, but dice are not the core of the game. They are only in the game to govern a particular (if likely) set of circumstances that arises in the course of gameplay. Many rounds of gameplay, even in a jousting match, involve no dice.

So (just to be clear) you are cool with bad sportsmanship and people winning games by stalling/running the clock and frustrating their opponents into conceding. You think this is perfectly healthy and good for the community? A simple yes/no will suffice

It's fair and I guess you can do it, but I wouldn't have had a lot of fun or really wanted to play against you again. I guess if you had been really dodgey but tried to get in a shot at range 3 or something it would completely change my perspective. At the same time, he didn't adapt in a smart way.

Still, I've been on the other side of this, in a Taekwondo match. I was against this huge guy, and every time he hit me it hurt like hell and nothing I did hurt him. But TKD works on solid hits to specific targets, so I was still ahead by being faster, and because he was really dead set on kicking me in the head. I probably would have been knocked out. At the end of the match we got locked in and I happened to notice the scoreboard had 12 seconds on it and I was ahead on points, so I just tried to stay locked with him. He was big and kept trying to kick me, but it was just kneeing me in the chest, rather than getting a kick off. He tried to go backwards and I just followed him, kinda like a kid going "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!" So maybe I'm a hypocrite, but I did spend most of the time trying to pummel him and would have taken an opportunity had it arisen. I guess that I'm very much on the side of making this game fun first and foremost. I'm quitting Attack Wing because those prizes are making people act really badly in a lot of ways.

Apparently you don't know what the term "stall" or "ran the clock" means.

This would mean that he took 5 min to set his dials. Another 2-3 min just to move one ship,then another 4-5 min to decide if he wanted to focus or target lock

His opponent obviously wasnt a very good player as he probably could have easily taken one or two Y wings and try to use them to funnel his a wings into a position that would allow him to get a couple shots off

Trying to follow a ship that is much faster than you is just bad maneuvering. Simple s that.

Any player who can see what his opponent is doing could have countered that with any number of ships

I agree that it is kind-of cowardly tactics on the Op part, but a win is a win in a tournament setting.

He did not stall the clock in anyway, so at least get that correct.

He played defensively,and the other guy couldn't figure out how to beat it. Game over, good game

Edit:

Maybe it's because I played a lot of sports and whenever I was in a tournament match, I played to win. Maybe that is why I'm competitive. All other games before a tournament were for fun.

Finally I just want to add, the player who conceded, and later goes on to say that the player who won was unsportsmanlike. It seems to me the player who conceded was unsportsman. Seeing as he conceded, and couldn't figure out how to counter.

So he wants people to fly directly at him? Why would anyone do that if it is likely to be their defeat.

The guy who lost should just suck it up and learn to be a better Loser

Stalling (intentional slow play, excessive time spent choosing maneuvers, etc) is already officially against the rules and is up to TOs to enforce. getting a points lead and avoiding combat is not stalling or slow play as long as you are placing your dials in a reasonable time, moving your ships, following the game rules, etc. Attacking enemy ships is not a required part of playing the game, if a player wished to simply fly around the map without ever firing a shot they would be well within the rules to do so.

Is it fun to play against someone using such a strategy? Perhaps not, but it is not their job to ensure that you are having fun. Fun is an entirely subjective term, and playing like that might be fun for them. However, judging a person's playstyle and using it as ammunition to disparage their character as a person is beyond childish.

If a strategy like this proved to be overwhelmingly effective and ruined the game experience for most players, it would certainly be detrimental to the game. However, that would mean it is not a well-designed game. If people stopped playing it, that would simply be the fate of a poorly designed game. However, this strategy does not seem to be dominating tournaments and other players have already suggested alternative strategies or lists (not every list is viable, this is not a new concept for X-wing).

100% legal while not very sporting. Nothing matters but winning? The ends justify the means? I would rather avoid tournaments than play in a community with that mindset. Last time I checked, this was a game for enjoyment and leisure.

So flip side to this, he should be expected to fly as his opponent want him to, even if that isn't fun for him? Is it unsporting that his opponent bought a list of 4 turrets? 4 ion turrets to be specific. A list specifically designed to take maneuvering out of the game. Isn't that just as unsporting under your view?

Ignore the specifics of this scenario laid out by the OP. The list do matter, the tactics do not matter. If scoring a win for tournament points is all that matters than all else matters not, it falls under the category of poor sportsmanship.

Xwing is a game of dog fighting. The object of a dog fight is to destroy your enemy. Drawing an opponent off or escaping from an enemy is a valid scenario concept but it is not valid for a dog fight.

If the game is WAAC then let FFG go bankrupt, close the doors and turn off the lights.

Sounds a lot like GW around here. No thanks.

not at all. its within the rules and u can build a sqd to do it if u want to. in a tournament u use the rules to help u win even if it means hit-and-run tactics help u do that.

Play the game?

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

FFG says he was playing the game. He just wasn't playing yours or this opponents game. His opponent lost because of it.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Eistein

Change tactics, or lose.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

As other's have said, that's exactly what he did. OP presumably chose and placed his dials in a timely manner, moved according to their revelation--in order of pilot skill--and chose actions after each move. He remained within the 3 x 3 play area and had the (potenntially) difficult task of anticipating his opponents in order to avoid being cornered. This is not only playing the game, b but playing the game with a high degree of skill.

No dice were involved, true, but dice are not the core of the game. They are only in the game to govern a particular (if likely) set of circumstances that arises in the course of gameplay. Many rounds of gameplay, even in a jousting match, involve no dice.

So (just to be clear) you are cool with bad sportsmanship and people winning games by stalling/running the clock and frustrating their opponents into conceding. You think this is perfectly healthy and good for the community? A simple yes/no will suffice

Must we play this game of gross misrepresentation? I have never encouraged stalling, only skillful (and risky) flying. Should I respond,

"So (just to be clear) you are cool with bad sportsmanship and people winning games by forcing/manipulating/peer pressuring their opponents into flying into their targeting arcs? You think forcing a lack of skill is perfectly healthy and good for the community?"

It is clear at this point, however, that you have no interest in having a civil conversation on the matter. You have not been able to offer a single definition of "playing the game" nor described a reasonable tactic for our A-Wing flying friend. Tactics for the Y-Wing that could defeat this running away game have been suggested, but they evidently don't fit into your definition of playing the game. At this point, I am quite certain that I don't want to play your game which amounts to little more than chucking dice back and forth and you don't want to play my game which allows one side to lose horribly. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree. Good day, sir.

Sorry, but this "playstyle" is worth crying foul over. If you don't understand that, then you are part of problem of the growing toxicity in the community and tournament scene.

In all seriousness, and without resorting to insults, what do you recommend the OP do in this situation? What would be a less "toxic" but equally viable strategy?

Play the game.

As other's have said, that's exactly what he did. OP presumably chose and placed his dials in a timely manner, moved according to their revelation--in order of pilot skill--and chose actions after each move. He remained within the 3 x 3 play area and had the (potenntially) difficult task of anticipating his opponents in order to avoid being cornered. This is not only playing the game, b but playing the game with a high degree of skill.

No dice were involved, true, but dice are not the core of the game. They are only in the game to govern a particular (if likely) set of circumstances that arises in the course of gameplay. Many rounds of gameplay, even in a jousting match, involve no dice.

So (just to be clear) you are cool with bad sportsmanship and people winning games by stalling/running the clock and frustrating their opponents into conceding. You think this is perfectly healthy and good for the community? A simple yes/no will suffice

Must we play this game of gross misrepresentation? I have never encouraged stalling, only skillful (and risky) flying. Should I respond,

"So (just to be clear) you are cool with bad sportsmanship and people winning games by forcing/manipulating/peer pressuring their opponents into flying into their targeting arcs? You think forcing a lack of skill is perfectly healthy and good for the community?"

It is clear at this point, however, that you have no interest in having a civil conversation on the matter. You have not been able to offer a single definition of "playing the game" nor described a reasonable tactic for our A-Wing flying friend. Tactics for the Y-Wing that could defeat this running away game have been suggested, but they evidently don't fit into your definition of playing the game. At this point, I am quite certain that I don't want to play your game which amounts to little more than chucking dice back and forth and you don't want to play my game which allows one side to lose horribly. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree. Good day, sir.

So that's a "yes". Ok then, thank you.

ITT: playing to win doesn't count as playing.