Victory conditions for the game should be modified so that someone isn't best served by flying around in a 3x3 avoiding shots. The losing player in the OP's story should have modified his strategy, just because one player is inflexible doesn't mean the other should purposefully play in a disadvantageous way.

Playing defensively is a beautiful tactic, that many pilots don't recognize.

Stalling is taking 5 minutes to set your maneuver dial.

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

Wow dude.

Yes, Stalling/Bad Sportsmanship is bad for the community.

THIS is not Stalling/Bad Sportsmanship.

You have yet to present anything justifying why the A-wing player must play against it's strengths and is required to joust Y-Wings w/ Turrets, and the Y-Wing player does not have to break formation and chase down the mobility and evasive A-Wings.

noun

It's a valid strategy, but it's also a **** move that's not going to make you well liked.

Actually no, running the clock and frustrating your opponent into conceding isn't a valid strategy, it's just a jerk move. You sound like one of those kids who runs the clock in MTG as soon as you are a bit ahead.

This is completely wrong. You cannot 'run the clock' in Magic, unless you mean deliberately drawing out the game by playing defensively, which is just going to hurt you anyways. Do you even play Magic?

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.

The only one I see promoting bad sportmanship here would be you I'm afraid.

You're basically saying that you should be allowed to go into a game having already decided how you're going to play, and if you're opponent refuses to make the moves that allow you to win you won't bother changing your tactics to beat him, but will instead have a little hissy fit. That is bad sportmanship.

I think avoidance in a match you KNOW you are going to win is pretty unsportsmanlike like. But moving to avoid fire from a dangerous source is pretty fair.

For those who complain about the Y-Wing pilot being unfair? Let us all be honest and look at the game match the OP had. Given the dice rolling and flying the OP could have won in a confrontation. He could have swooped in behind the Y-wings and held at Range 3 getting shots off and widdling them down. While the Y-wing player could have split up to chase after the A-wings. Guess that is why I don't see the need to run away when with Turrets you stay at range 3 you will not have to worry. Who cares if the Y-wing gets 2 defense dice, it moves like a brick. Hug that big caboose of a ship and just blast it at range 3, it will die at some point!

Both players could have tried different tactics, that kept them engaged and having fun. But BOTH sides decided to see who would last longer in a game of boredom, seems like the Y-wing player was the first to realized it was kind of pointless. It sucks how both sides put each other in terrible positions that ended up causing them to lose the "Fun" factor of the game. Without even realizing it, they were just choosing what tactics they thought were best.

This is the double edge sword that is called playing "Tactical", you do what you believe is best in the given situation. Just sometimes the best option is not the most fun option for yourself and your opponent. Don't stress it, but maybe try to think over options than just straight running away? This goes for the opponent too, they should be trying different tactics as well.

Though it may be too late, I might suggest not turning this thread into another "everyone argues with the one or two people that happen to express their minority opinion with hostility" exercise.

It's a valid strategy, but it's also a **** move that's not going to make you well liked.

Actually no, running the clock and frustrating your opponent into conceding isn't a valid strategy, it's just a jerk move. You sound like one of those kids who runs the clock in MTG as soon as you are a bit ahead.

This is completely wrong. You cannot 'run the clock' in Magic, unless you mean deliberately drawing out the game by playing defensively, which is just going to hurt you anyways. Do you even play Magic?

Huh, you've loudly proclaimed twice that you've put me on ignore. What happened there?

And yes, you can stall in MTG. Rounds are timed and you can play purposefully slowly to force a draw/win. It's hard to get a judge to call an opponent on slow play unless they are extremely obvious about it, but you can tell when an opponent is running the clock. Do you play MTG?

A draw/win is terrible in a tournament. Drawing out a match for a draw is a terrible strategy, and only hurts you on the long run. Just so I get this straight, you're saying a judge in one of the best adjudicated games is rendered completely helpless in this situation, even when it's perfectly obvious what he's doing. I mean, clearly it should be obvious to a judge if it's obvious to you, the player. That's a pretty quick warning -> game loss scenario.

So yes, I play Magic, which makes it that much more obvious that you don't.

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.

The only one I see promoting bad sportmanship here would be you I'm afraid.

You're basically saying that you should be allowed to go into a game having already decided how you're going to play, and if you're opponent refuses to make the moves that allow you to win you won't bother changing your tactics to beat him, but will instead have a little hissy fit. That is bad sportmanship.

You don't understand, do you. The OP made one run, killed some ships and spent the rest of the game avoiding playing to force the opponent to concede. He knew he was going to win and just refused to engage until the opponent finally was frustrated into conceding. Justify this. Justify how this is a good playstyle. Justify how this is good for the community.

Simple:

The OP found himself in a position whereby his best bet was to engage the enemy piecemeal. His opponent knew this and refused to be engaged piecemeal. The opponent had a choice of "engage piecemeal and maybe lose, or don't engage at all and certainly lose", and chose to do the latter.

At last check there wasn't anything in the theoretical Sportman's Handbook that says "if you're winning the game you must deliberately make stupid moves just to let your opponent win". Hell, if I was in the opponent's position and the OP deliberately started making stupid moves like you suggest, I would actually be a little offended. "Do you have so little respect for me that you're now playing to lose?"

You don't understand, do you. The OP made one run, killed some ships and spent the rest of the game avoiding playing to force the opponent to concede. He knew he was going to win and just refused to engage until the opponent finally was frustrated into conceding. Justify this. Justify how this is a good playstyle. Justify how this is good for the community.

Many people on both sides of this have said that the Y-Wing player did nothing to prevent this. By refusing to break formation he decided he would prefer to concede than to adapt to the situation.

Again, the Heartbreak Ridge quote applies:

"Improvise. Overcome. Adapt."

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.

The only one I see promoting bad sportmanship here would be you I'm afraid.

You're basically saying that you should be allowed to go into a game having already decided how you're going to play, and if you're opponent refuses to make the moves that allow you to win you won't bother changing your tactics to beat him, but will instead have a little hissy fit. That is bad sportmanship.

You don't understand, do you. The OP made one run, killed some ships and spent the rest of the game avoiding playing to force the opponent to concede. He knew he was going to win and just refused to engage until the opponent finally was frustrated into conceding. Justify this. Justify how this is a good playstyle. Justify how this is good for the community.

The issue here is that he was playing; the y-wing player could have, at any time, corralled the A-wings and gunned them down. He chose to keep his fighters in a herd instead.

My dogs are slower than the rabbits and squirrels in my backyard, they don't just case them by running right next to each other, they split up and try to force their prey into range of the other. If the Y-wing player had use a similar strategy he would have won, or at least put in a good showing.

If a strategy is easily countered then the other player choosing to not counter it doesn't make it unsportsmanlike. A ure maneuvering game can be fun as both player try to outfox each other. I don't fully approve of not taking pot shots while running, but running in and of itself is not only valid, but for a hit and run strike craft it is somewhat vital.

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.

The only one I see promoting bad sportmanship here would be you I'm afraid.

You're basically saying that you should be allowed to go into a game having already decided how you're going to play, and if you're opponent refuses to make the moves that allow you to win you won't bother changing your tactics to beat him, but will instead have a little hissy fit. That is bad sportmanship.

You don't understand, do you. The OP made one run, killed some ships and spent the rest of the game avoiding playing to force the opponent to concede. He knew he was going to win and just refused to engage until the opponent finally was frustrated into conceding. Justify this. Justify how this is a good playstyle. Justify how this is good for the community.

Show us where in the OPs message he said he desided to play to force his oppenent to conced in frustaration . Because I've read it over and I don't see anything about that.

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.

The only one I see promoting bad sportmanship here would be you I'm afraid.

You're basically saying that you should be allowed to go into a game having already decided how you're going to play, and if you're opponent refuses to make the moves that allow you to win you won't bother changing your tactics to beat him, but will instead have a little hissy fit. That is bad sportmanship.

You don't understand, do you. The OP made one run, killed some ships and spent the rest of the game avoiding playing to force the opponent to concede. He knew he was going to win and just refused to engage until the opponent finally was frustrated into conceding. Justify this. Justify how this is a good playstyle. Justify how this is good for the community.

Show us where in the OPs message he said he desided to play to force his oppenent to conced in frustaration . Because I've read it over and I don't see anything about that.

Oh, you think he conceded because he was having fun? Really? :S

Also, riddle me this, batman: What other win condition would have OP had by totally avoiding combat? He's avoiding engaging the opponent, neither side will destroy the other. The only win conditions with a strat like this is the time runs out or the opponent concededs.

THINK!

Duplicate post

Show us where in the OPs message he said he desided to play to force his oppenent to conced in frustaration . Because I've read it over and I don't see anything about that.

Oh, you think he conceded because he was having fun? Really? :S

No,I think he gave up because Nematode wasn't playing the game the way he wanted him to. As others have said the Y-wing player could have spilt his ships up and at least stood a chance of shooting down one of Nematode's A-wings but he chose not to. Sure maybe Nematode wasn't "Playing the game" but by not trying to respond to his tatics his opponant wasn't "playing the game" either.

The issue here is that he was playing; the y-wing player could have, at any time, corralled the A-wings and gunned them down. He chose to keep his fighters in a herd instead.

*snip*

I don't fully approve of not taking pot shots while running, but running in and of itself is not only valid, but for a hit and run strike craft it is somewhat vital.

100%

If my opponent stopped firing at me all together, you bet your a** that I would be upset.

When I fly my Interceptors against a YT, I stop trying to flank it while avoiding firing arcs where it's 360 has an advantage, and instead get all up in it's grill where my numerous Interceptors have an advantage against it's single evade die.

Change tactics or die.

Oh, you think he conceded because he was having fun? Really? :S

He stopped having fun and conceded when he decided that breaking formation of his Y-Wings was too much for him.

Show us where in the OPs message he said he desided to play to force his oppenent to conced in frustaration . Because I've read it over and I don't see anything about that.

Oh, you think he conceded because he was having fun? Really? :S

No,I think he gave up because Nematode wasn't playing the game the way he wanted him to. As others have said the Y-wing player could have spilt his ships up and at least stood a chance of shooting down one of Nematode's A-wings but he chose not to. Sure maybe Nematode wasn't "Playing the game" but by not trying to respond to his tatics his opponant wasn't "playing the game" either.

Nema was purposefully not playing the game, maybe his opponent wasn't as skilled as him or maybe he didn't think of the proposed solution, you can't accuse the opponent of not playing the game. I think even if the opponent had split up his forces, Nema would have just kept using the higher speeds of the A-wing to continue to evade engagement.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I stopped having fun reading this thread when it became permeated with hyperbole and sophism. That was clearly both unsportsmanlike and toxic of a certain poster.

Show us where in the OPs message he said he desided to play to force his oppenent to conced in frustaration . Because I've read it over and I don't see anything about that.

Oh, you think he conceded because he was having fun? Really? :S

No,I think he gave up because Nematode wasn't playing the game the way he wanted him to. As others have said the Y-wing player could have spilt his ships up and at least stood a chance of shooting down one of Nematode's A-wings but he chose not to. Sure maybe Nematode wasn't "Playing the game" but by not trying to respond to his tatics his opponant wasn't "playing the game" either.

Nema was purposefully not playing the game, maybe his opponent wasn't as skilled as him or maybe he didn't think of the proposed solution, you can't accuse the opponent of not playing the game. I think even if the opponent had split up his forces, Nema would have just kept using the higher speeds of the A-wing to continue to evade engagement.

Assuming he started with 4 y-wings, he'd have three left. Pick an a-wing and pounce. Three y-wings with turrets should be able to cover ever place an a-wing can conceivably be.

Also, riddle me this, batman: What other win condition would have OP had by totally avoiding combat? He's avoiding engaging the opponent, neither side will destroy the other. The only win conditions with a strat like this is the time runs out or the opponent concededs.

Thematicly? The A-Wings are tasked with stalling the Y-Wings until the larger force arrives, or prevent them from engaging a more valuable target that is off-board.

Similar? In football when your team is up and the clock is running down and you take a knee until the time runs out for the win.

In-Game? http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4750 Because FFG says that it is a legal and valid win condition.

Show us where in the OPs message he said he desided to play to force his oppenent to conced in frustaration . Because I've read it over and I don't see anything about that.

Oh, you think he conceded because he was having fun? Really? :S

No,I think he gave up because Nematode wasn't playing the game the way he wanted him to. As others have said the Y-wing player could have spilt his ships up and at least stood a chance of shooting down one of Nematode's A-wings but he chose not to. Sure maybe Nematode wasn't "Playing the game" but by not trying to respond to his tatics his opponant wasn't "playing the game" either.

Nema was purposefully not playing the game, maybe his opponent wasn't as skilled as him or maybe he didn't think of the proposed solution, you can't accuse the opponent of not playing the game. I think even if the opponent had split up his forces, Nema would have just kept using the higher speeds of the A-wing to continue to evade engagement.

Well yes,even if the other player did split up his forces Nema would have most likely tried to advoid him further but at least he would have been tring to adapt to Nema instead of just giving up. So as I said Nema may not have been playing the game but by not even trying fight back the other guy is just as guilty of not playing.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I stopped having fun reading this thread when it became permeated with hyperbole and sophism. That was clearly both unsportsmanlike and toxic of a certain poster.

There he goes, called it.

I'm on the OPs side. Flying A-Wings in to engage a team of Ion-equipped heavily armored ships is basically saying, "Let me punt my maneuverability to allow you to roll repeated 3-dice attacks against my fragile ship while forcing it to do one-straight maneuvers." It's suicidal, and outright stupid with that build.

Who cares if the Y only has one green die? It also has 8 health against ships with only two attack dice each.