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.

It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't seem to understand Thai maybe your opinion is not the correct one.

I really don't know if you just like to troll,or argue for the sake of argument, but this is not the first thread where I've seen you comment and argue with others.

I believe you just like to do it because your either a) bored b) a troll

Imo a mature adult can admit when he is wrong, and someone who is childish will argue until they are blue in the face, no matter how many times they are pointed out that they are wrong and even doesn't understand the terms that he uses. Such as "stalling the clock for example "

In the end what we know is both players played by the rules. Nobody cheats, and nobody tried to stall the clock for a cheap win.

Both players had their tactics. The losing player didn't seem to see that what he was doing didn't work, and failed to change his tactics, then goes on to concede the game.

I think that the losing player was a sore lost, and I for one would not go easy on such a player. The more we discuss this, the more I'm glad for the Op winning strategy

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 don't think you're going to find many people here who empathize with you.

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 don't think you're going to find many people here who empathize with you.

I don't want nor care for people being empathetic to me. I just find it funny when you reveal your true colors. I'm amazed you haven't loudly declared that you are going to block me etc etc

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.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when the majority seem to disagree with that opinion, then why sit there and try to argue? Obviously the majority don't agree, and most here don't agree with your opinion.

It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't seem to understand Thai maybe your opinion is not the correct one.

I really don't know if you just like to troll,or argue for the sake of argument, but this is not the first thread where I've seen you comment and argue with others.

I believe you just like to do it because your either a) bored b) a troll

Imo a mature adult can admit when he is wrong, and someone who is childish will argue until they are blue in the face, no matter how many times they are pointed out that they are wrong and even doesn't understand the terms that he uses. Such as "stalling the clock for example "

In the end what we know is both players played by the rules. Nobody cheats, and nobody tried to stall the clock for a cheap win.

Both players had their tactics. The losing player didn't seem to see that what he was doing didn't work, and failed to change his tactics, then goes on to concede the game.

I think that the losing player was a sore lost, and I for one would not go easy on such a player. The more we discuss this, the more I'm glad for the Op winning strategy

So, just to make sure we are clear on this. You feel it's a legit strategy to refuse to engage your opponent and avoid combat with the intention of achieveing victory by either running th clock down or by frustrating your opponent into conceding? Also, you feel this is a healthy playstyle/strategy that is going to foster positive feelings within the gaming community, should it become widespread?

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 don't think you're going to find many people here who empathize with you.

Any part I've seen by him as of late seem to just go against the majority, and then try to push his opinion down everyone throat

And doesn't seem to contribute with anything positive

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 don't think you're going to find many people here who empathize with you.

No, unfortunately for him I think he is just going to give himself a bad name on here as a troll, and eventually nobody will listen to him, and he'll have to make another account

Any part I've seen by him as of late seem to just go against the majority, and then try to push his opinion down everyone throat

And doesn't seem to contribute with anything positive

Ah...there it is. Someone who has a different opinion than you, who is very passionate about it, you decree them 'troll'. Ridiculous.

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 don't think you're going to find many people here who empathize with you.

I don't want nor care for people being empathetic to me. I just find it funny when you reveal your true colors. I'm amazed you haven't loudly declared that you are going to block me etc etc

I just find it funny that the things you say about me better reflect the way everyone else seems to feel about you. You're going to have a very hard time convincing them that I'm the bad guy.

As for ignoring you, I'd much rather just sit here and watch you dig your own grave. It's quite entertaining.

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.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when the majority seem to disagree with that opinion, then why sit there and try to argue? Obviously the majority don't agree, and most here don't agree with your opinion.

It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't seem to understand Thai maybe your opinion is not the correct one.

I really don't know if you just like to troll,or argue for the sake of argument, but this is not the first thread where I've seen you comment and argue with others.

I believe you just like to do it because your either a) bored b) a troll

Imo a mature adult can admit when he is wrong, and someone who is childish will argue until they are blue in the face, no matter how many times they are pointed out that they are wrong and even doesn't understand the terms that he uses. Such as "stalling the clock for example "

In the end what we know is both players played by the rules. Nobody cheats, and nobody tried to stall the clock for a cheap win.

Both players had their tactics. The losing player didn't seem to see that what he was doing didn't work, and failed to change his tactics, then goes on to concede the game.

I think that the losing player was a sore lost, and I for one would not go easy on such a player. The more we discuss this, the more I'm glad for the Op winning strategy

So, just to make sure we are clear on this. You feel it's a legit strategy to refuse to engage your opponent and avoid combat with the intention of achieveing victory by either running th clock down or by frustrating your opponent into conceding? Also, you feel this is a healthy playstyle/strategy that is going to foster positive feelings within the gaming community, should it become widespread?

Well I don't think it's going to become widespread because that kind of tactic can easily be overcome by someone with half a brain.

I'm sure the Op didn't win the tournamentwith this strategy,and probably lost a few games.

If it's within the rules who are we to say if it's right or wrong.

So if someone plays against you, and you expect them to joust with you, and they don't, I guess they are just bad sportsman?

If my opponent doesn't want to fight and just run around, I'll adjust my strategy and move somewhere where he least expect it, and probably win. It's a strategy game, and being where your opponent doesn't expect can be the best move

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.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when the majority seem to disagree with that opinion, then why sit there and try to argue? Obviously the majority don't agree, and most here don't agree with your opinion.

It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't seem to understand Thai maybe your opinion is not the correct one.

I really don't know if you just like to troll,or argue for the sake of argument, but this is not the first thread where I've seen you comment and argue with others.

I believe you just like to do it because your either a) bored b) a troll

Imo a mature adult can admit when he is wrong, and someone who is childish will argue until they are blue in the face, no matter how many times they are pointed out that they are wrong and even doesn't understand the terms that he uses. Such as "stalling the clock for example "

In the end what we know is both players played by the rules. Nobody cheats, and nobody tried to stall the clock for a cheap win.

Both players had their tactics. The losing player didn't seem to see that what he was doing didn't work, and failed to change his tactics, then goes on to concede the game.

I think that the losing player was a sore lost, and I for one would not go easy on such a player. The more we discuss this, the more I'm glad for the Op winning strategy

So, just to make sure we are clear on this. You feel it's a legit strategy to refuse to engage your opponent and avoid combat with the intention of achieveing victory by either running th clock down or by frustrating your opponent into conceding? Also, you feel this is a healthy playstyle/strategy that is going to foster positive feelings within the gaming community, should it become widespread?

Well I don't think it's going to become widespread because that kind of tactic can easily be overcome by someone with half a brain.

I'm sure the Op didn't win the tournamentwith this strategy,and probably lost a few games.

If it's within the rules who are we to say if it's right or wrong.

So if someone plays against you, and you expect them to joust with you, and they don't, I guess they are just bad sportsman?

If my opponent doesn't want to fight and just run around, I'll adjust my strategy and move somewhere where he least expect it, and probably win. It's a strategy game, and being where your opponent doesn't expect can be the best move

You are avoiding the core of the problem. This wasn't OP not wanting to joust. This was OP realizing he could win the game by not playing the game and capitalizing on it. Purposefully attempting to avoid playing to get your opponent to concede may be legal but it is a terrible playstyle.

i play Interceptors and i could never see myself play 30 minutes without being able to get myself into a good shooting position that didn't give my opponent a good shot on me, if it took me 5 turns of positioning to do it fine, but no way do i want to play 30 minutes without rolling a single red or green dice.

so to answer the origina question Yes it was Bad Sportsmanship.

Well it could also have been his downfall.

His opponent just doesn't know how to play a strategy game.

He had the point lead and decided "I'll avoid combat and win"

Well I would love that because and especially flying awings, I would break of pursuit,and put him into a bottle neck and get hit from 2 sides.

The game could have gone completely different if the losing player decided to adapt, make a move the other player wouldn'texpect, therefore throwing off his attempt to just run, and maybe the losing player would have won

But he decided to be a sore Loser because the other player was obviously smarter than him

Plus he was flying Y wings with ion.

I wouldn't go head on with awings.

And hey, I'm not saying it's a great strategy. Actually it's not a very good one Imo. Especially with the minor point lead, it could have changed with one slightly different move on the losers part.

I still think it's cowardly, but it's worth the rules of the game.

Some people play defensively, others aggressively, and others cowardly.

I think it's a bit cowardly, others may not agree, but it was legit, and the losing player was a sore loser

It is neither rude nor poor sportsmanship to play to your list strengths, or to your opponents weakness.

Your opponent built a squad with a blind spot, and his play compounded that blind spot. If your opponent found the game boring just point out that he contributed to that as much if not more then you by never adapting.

Social pressure should never be exerted in an effort to make you play stupidly. He had options, he chose not to utilize them.

This is precisely why playing defensively isn't an issue. Scottie, man, I love your insight. That's the kind of knowledge you'd get at West Point, or the Citadel.

The guy refused to adapt and therefore conceded the fight.

Oh dear lord, don't get me started on West Pointers.

I'm not going to lie, the idea that social consequences shouldn't affect how you play a social game is just plain wrong. Tabletop games are a social activity with social pressures. That social pressure is typically called sportsmanship. Therefor behavior that is anti-social, as in damages the social atmosphere is bad sportsmanship(This goes a multitude of ways and is hard to define The best definition follows the sentence). If the way you played has you asking, "Is it unsportsmanlike", the fact you have to ask the question probably means the answer is yes. But next time, ask the players at your store, not the intenet. It's not a place known for social skills or sportsmanship.

Personally to me its sounds like the opponent was just pissed he lost what should have in his mind been an easy win because he had double your total HP, and his 360 arcs.

I agree that running away and stalling until the clock runs out is not a fun way to play, but if he refuses to do what he can to try to engage, he can't fully blame you either.

If I play against a Large ship fortress build and he just parks in his deployment zone and sits there since turn one I have no problem turning my ships around and just flying laps in my deployment zone. If he wants to complain that I did not engage him, I will calmly point out that he chose to sit in his deployment zone all game, and if he wanted an engagement he could have flown out of their and we would have played the game. I have no qualms about taking a draw to prove a point.

Now playing games of chicken, for who will deviate from their strategy first can be the sign of a good player, either he realizes he needs to deviate from his strategy to get the win and he at least tries too, or he just stubbornly follows his strategy and loses. Conversely, you could have followed your strategy of playing keep away and force him to try to engage and win if he did not break off, or you cave and try for a more fun game or to social pressure and you (possibly) lose.

I am relatively new to this game and thus far the one thing that shines for me is the complete and utter enjoyment I have when playing it! Having been a miniatures war gamer for a very long time, I find it refreshing that FFG has written such a simple rule set that allows for such competitive play.

I have steered away, in recent times, from certain other miniatures games (let's keep them nameless for about 40 reasons so as not to devolve into pure fantasy) because I became disgusted not with the lists, but with the mentality that comes with those lists. It is all good and well to say "it's legal" and "it's a tournament" and I agree, however I do not agree that this should preclude both players from enjoying the game.

In the example posted by the OP the fundamental question to me is did HE have flying around the board and not engaging? I personally think that he would not have (just a guess). It seems pretty obvious that his opponent didn't enjoy that much.

This is where I think that the problem lies, the OP sacrificed both his opponents and his own enjoyment of the game to claim a win. I won't go into the multitude of options that both players had here to try and alter the outcome as they have been listed throughout this thread.

I am only speculating on the OP mindset here BtW so please don't be too harsh if I'm wrong!

But if I am wrong then in this example there certainly will be times when this does happens.

Fundamentally, whatever the setting, whatever the meta, you should both enjoy the game first, and the win second (IMO).

Was the A-wing pilot actually trying to get range 3 shots? or just flying laps around the board? Couldn't be bothered to read 6 pages of ppl shaking their holier than thou sticks at each other. If he was actually trying to get range 3 shots the good for him. If he wasnt, and was just flying laps around the board.... well i hope he has friends to play with that are ok with that. I know alot of shops where he would be hard pressed to find pick up games after playing like that.

I have steered away, in recent times, from certain other miniatures games (let's keep them nameless for about 40 reasons so as not to devolve into pure fantasy )

I see what you did there, and know exactly what two games you are talking about

Was the A-wing pilot actually trying to get range 3 shots? or just flying laps around the board? Couldn't be bothered to read 6 pages of ppl shaking their holier than thou sticks at each other. If he was actually trying to get range 3 shots the good for him. If he wasnt, and was just flying laps around the board.... well i hope he has friends to play with that are ok with that. I know alot of shops where he would be hard pressed to find pick up games after playing like that.

No, the A-Wing was totally avoiding any and all engagement. He made one joust, killed a ship and his goal evolved to achieve a win by not playing and either running the clock out or getting the opponent so frustrated that he conceded.

Was the A-wing pilot actually trying to get range 3 shots? or just flying laps around the board? Couldn't be bothered to read 6 pages of ppl shaking their holier than thou sticks at each other. If he was actually trying to get range 3 shots the good for him. If he wasnt, and was just flying laps around the board.... well i hope he has friends to play with that are ok with that. I know alot of shops where he would be hard pressed to find pick up games after playing like that.

No, the A-Wing was totally avoiding any and all engagement. He made one joust, killed a ship and his goal evolved to achieve a win by not playing and either running the clock out or getting the opponent so frustrated that he conceded.

Good luck to him finding pick up games if his shop of choice to play is anything like the two I frequent.

Seems okay to me.

He even had Turrets! Should have been a bit easier for him than doing this with other lists. Split up and catch one with Ion, then hope you can bring the other ships in to assist.

It's just a matter of EXPECTING your opponent to run away rather than stay and fight, because you will move your ships differently in each case.

It's not as cheap as some things I've seen in other game tournaments. Super Smash Brothers Brawl...Ice Climbers can grab you one time and pass you back and forth until you are at a super high percent. Unstoppable. And perfectly legal in tournaments. Just a matter of using the system in place to get a win.

I'm not going to lie, the idea that social consequences shouldn't affect how you play a social game is just plain wrong. Tabletop games are a social activity with social pressures. That social pressure is typically called sportsmanship. Therefor behavior that is anti-social, as in damages the social atmosphere is bad sportsmanship(This goes a multitude of ways and is hard to define The best definition follows the sentence). If the way you played has you asking, "Is it unsportsmanlike", the fact you have to ask the question probably means the answer is yes. But next time, ask the players at your store, not the intenet. It's not a place known for social skills or sportsmanship.

The problem with this idea is that it assumes that sportsmanship, or a social group's idea of it anyway, is a concrete measurable standard by which to judge one's actions. There is a big difference between shunning a person because they are actually a jerk versus a group trying to peer pressure someone into altering their game strategy because "they don't like it."

Playing by the rules and accepting one's wins and losses graciously is about all you can concretely define about sportsmanship. Beyond that, you can quickly move into the territory of "I am a true sportsman and other true sportsmen must play within my arbitrarily defined honor code that is separate from the actual game rules" without even realizing it, as this thread has demonstrated

I'm not going to lie, the idea that social consequences shouldn't affect how you play a social game is just plain wrong. Tabletop games are a social activity with social pressures. That social pressure is typically called sportsmanship. Therefor behavior that is anti-social, as in damages the social atmosphere is bad sportsmanship(This goes a multitude of ways and is hard to define The best definition follows the sentence). If the way you played has you asking, "Is it unsportsmanlike", the fact you have to ask the question probably means the answer is yes. But next time, ask the players at your store, not the intenet. It's not a place known for social skills or sportsmanship.

The problem with this idea is that it assumes that sportsmanship, or a social group's idea of it anyway, is a concrete measurable standard by which to judge one's actions. There is a big difference between shunning a person because they are actually a jerk versus a group trying to peer pressure someone into altering their game strategy because "they don't like it."

Playing by the rules and accepting one's wins and losses graciously is about all you can concretely define about sportsmanship. Beyond that, you can quickly move into the territory of "I am a true sportsman and other true sportsmen must play within my arbitrarily defined honor code that is separate from the actual game rules" without even realizing it, as this thread has demonstrated

Well said.

I'm not going to lie, the idea that social consequences shouldn't affect how you play a social game is just plain wrong. Tabletop games are a social activity with social pressures. That social pressure is typically called sportsmanship. Therefor behavior that is anti-social, as in damages the social atmosphere is bad sportsmanship(This goes a multitude of ways and is hard to define The best definition follows the sentence). If the way you played has you asking, "Is it unsportsmanlike", the fact you have to ask the question probably means the answer is yes. But next time, ask the players at your store, not the intenet. It's not a place known for social skills or sportsmanship.

The problem with this idea is that it assumes that sportsmanship, or a social group's idea of it anyway, is a concrete measurable standard by which to judge one's actions. There is a big difference between shunning a person because they are actually a jerk versus a group trying to peer pressure someone into altering their game strategy because "they don't like it."

Playing by the rules and accepting one's wins and losses graciously is about all you can concretely define about sportsmanship. Beyond that, you can quickly move into the territory of "I am a true sportsman and other true sportsmen must play within my arbitrarily defined honor code that is separate from the actual game rules" without even realizing it, as this thread has demonstrated

Ah, so in your opinion, because we cannot measure sportsmanship by an easy to use metric, we shouldn't expect people to hold themselves up to a higher standard and try to cultivate an enviroment where the game remains fun? We're in the WAAC territory now.

Sportsmanship is more than just taking wins/losses graciously. It's about how you treat other players and if you try to keep a game fun/engaging or if you decide you just want a win and are going to do whatever it takes (within the rules) to get it.

Ah, so in your opinion, because we cannot measure sportsmanship by an easy to use metric, we shouldn't expect people to hold themselves up to a higher standard and try to cultivate an enviroment where the game remains fun? We're in the WAAC territory now.

Sportsmanship is more than just taking wins/losses graciously. It's about how you treat other players and if you try to keep a game fun/engaging or if you decide you just want a win and are going to do whatever it takes (within the rules) to get it.

If I could find a gaming community that universally adhered to just the basic tenets of sportsmanship that I just described that would be fantastic. Unfortunately, every group seems to have its share of inflated egos and sore losers to varying degrees (human nature I suppose). Ideally, people can play every game within the rules, accept and analyze their wins and losses, and shake hands and say good game after a match without complaint. No phrases like "that's cheap" or "that isn't fair" thrown around, no one making excuses for their losses or accusing other people of playing in a way that they don't like, no complaints about game balance (though there's nothing wrong with civil discussion of the topic, as game balance is a fascinating subject and no game is perfect).

Before we talk about higher standards I think we could try and meet the basic ones first.