Did the OP fly within the rules? Sadly, yes. Was it legit? Sadly, yes. Would I play someone who did this repeatedly? Hell no! I want to have fun when I play and there's got to be some shooting involved.

Did the Y-Wing player do anything right or wrong? He chose his list because he thought it would be strong for him. He could have played better, he could have changed his tactics, but chose not to and had an unenjoyable game as a result. Was he expecting an opponent to spend the game running away? Probably not.

So the blame is entirely on the OP instead of the Y-wing player?

I never said that. Could the Y-Wing player have played better? Most definitely. Could the A-wing player have engaged more? Most definitely. Who is to blame for it all? I'd say both. The fact that one player walked away from the table with a win is neither here nor there. It didn't sound like a particularly enjoyable game from either player's view.

One thing I find kind of hilarious, everyone assumes trying to catch a fleeing opponent isn't fun.

I love me a good game of cat and mouse. Get over here Jerry. It's not for everyone. but to put a blanket "That's not fun" statement over everything is not exactly fairly representing things. This is a maneuvering game first and foremost, the shooting is to see who maneuvered the best.

Criticizing player tactics over a subjective concept like fun is pretty much impossible to justify. For every time you say 'that doesn't make the game fun" you can find someone who disagrees. This kind of argument probably occurs on every game forum for every game ever.

"Doing X makes the game not fun so no one should do it"

"actually I think it's pretty fun and can be countered with Y tactic"

Its a fair move, screaming about it wont help...

Dear god. So much anger.

HunterEste, for someone who is against toxic environments, you may want to take a good hard look at your posting. The militaristic "casuals" who are dead set against any kind of competitive mindset are just as detrimental to the game as the super competitive players. And this game is hardly filled with the problem players other games have, so let's not make it into an epidemic.

Everyone else, just let it go. The kill and run tactic is not going to become an issue. Because it is a BAD tactic. Same with the Millenium Fortress or Lambda Fortress. Is running away cheesy, sure. But, he was winning. The burden of initiative was no longer on him, but his opponent. You cannot evade combat for the rest of the game against any player with experience. Even the super nimble Interceptors cannot evade being shot 100% of the time. And his Y-wings should've been able to get at least one into shot. And really, with Push the Limit A-wings, one Ion would've been enough to completely screw up this run away tactic.

If the cheesy tactics were good ones, then the game would have a problem. But they are not, so don't worry about it if you see someone occasionally use them.

Well in the Op defense he was told after the game by the losing player that what he did was poor sportsmanship.

Therefore it made him second guess himself.

I don't know him or what he thinks, but I'd say that during the game he didn't feel he did anything wrong

Which btw he didn't.

He played to win and for that game he won. I feel like the player who lost was a sore loser because the other guy decided to use a cheap yet easy to defeat tactic.

Poor sportsmanship comes from things like being a bad winner, or loser.

Using tactics that give you an unfair advantage,like an infinite combo, or taking 3-4 min each time to decide something.

Playing defensively,or cowardly isn't bad sportsmanship.

From someone who has played a lot of sports when I was younger, and have played a lot of tournaments at a competitive level, what he did wasn't bad sportsmanship.

Things like altering someone Equipment, cheating, or after losing refusing to shake the other teams hand

Or in this case moving your opponents ships. Trying to shake the table. After losing a game storming out, or rage quiting. Picking up your piece and smashing it down in the table, throwing dice, and /or insulting another player. That is poor sportsmanship

So please stop trying to say what he did was poor sportsmanship. What he did was well within the rules.

Call it cheap, cowardly, if you must call it something.

Like playing street fighter. If someone playing Ryu keeps throwing fireballs, that's not poor sportsmanship. If the other player can't figure how to get out of the way, too bad,so sad. It can be considered a cheap move.

I don't see how what he did can be anything even close to poor sportsmanship. The game is a strategy game. His strategy a to get the lead in points and then avoid his opponent.

In all honesty I don't see how his opponent couldn't managed to catch him.

It's not like the board is that huge. Think his opponent was just not a very good player, and not a very good loser,and if anything telling him that what he did was poor sportsmanship, was unsporting.

If he can't counter that, then that's his problem.

I mean really, do you think you would have lost? I don't think I would have, as in sure the more experienced here would have torn him apart

I think you are dead right here Krynn. Most people would agree that the tactic employed by the OP wasn't one that was unbeatable (quite the opposite in fact). I think the thread has shifted a little from bad sports to player enjoyment. I agree that the ywing player was probably the biggest culprit for his after game comments. However, that being said, I think the OP didn't actually play a game of xwing (dogfight) and thus reduced his opponents enjoyment of the game. I see no reason why the OP could not have attempted to try and lay some R3 firepower on his opponent and can therefore only conclude that he sacrificed his and his opponents enjoyment of the game in order to achieve a win.

Would I play the OP? Absolutely. Would he be able to run for the whole game? I doubt it. Would I whine if he did? No. I'd get better!

I'm glad you understand what I'm getting at.

What I don't understand is everyone going on that if it's not fun I wont play.

First off its a tournament. Your going to see a different breed of played here. I just expect it. Maybe people here aren't use to a competitive environment.

If you come across this tactic. Destroy him, and then after nicely point out why he lost, and maybe your can teach him something.

If not then why do the tournament scene? To some people losing is not fun, but yet they play. Even though they can't win every game.

There's no need to go on saying if I come across this I won't play anymore.

You are going to come across this at some point in time, but you just have to deal with it and move on. Especially in the competitive scene.

I like to play. I like to have fun, but I also like to win. In a tournament I don't play with cheap tactics and when I lose, Im not a sore loser.

Playing in a league or friendly game your not as likely to come across this so often, because to those players, they feel as though the is no stakes up for grabs, but in a tournament environment, some really want to win

Wow. What a discussion here!

It seems to me that there is a distinction between what the rules say and what a person's morals are in conjunction with the definition of the game. And that this particular seperation has such varying answers of diversity to match the different fluctuating perceptions of the players posting their personal take on the matter.

For some, it's a simple "black and white" issue while to others is a complex situational issue that comes to a "by-basis" singularly.

Personally, I think that it is the fault of the actual tournament rules where ties cannot be permitted and there "must" be a winner and a loser. Since this is game is built upon points and in tournament settings is based upon who destroyed the most in terms of points on the opponent, point denial is a tactic that will undoubtedly be used. Every single table top war game that I've played that uses points (and there's plenty of them) will have certain players use a points-denial tactic. Warhammer is quite affluent in this scenario and many lists are created just as inteneded - as a points denial. So.. if a tournament were to NOT use a points system for determining wins, then this situational tactic of points denial wouldn't be abused.

So, I think taking away the personal moral and (obviously as this thread shows) diverstly of this topic of points denial from players would be a better step than trying to figure out where the fine-line of right vs. wrong vs. morals debate. And replacing the win/lose points system with a non-moral but fair one that is fun for both players. In any game, you cannot please everyone. But by changing out rules that rely on people using human common sense mixed with personal sportsmanship morals with those that don't could mean the difference of more players walking away from a loss and thinking "wow, that was such a great game".

- Lord Cedric

Dear god. So much anger.

HunterEste, for someone who is against toxic environments, you may want to take a good hard look at your posting. The militaristic "casuals" who are dead set against any kind of competitive mindset are just as detrimental to the game as the super competitive players. And this game is hardly filled with the problem players other games have, so let's not make it into an epidemic.

Everyone else, just let it go. The kill and run tactic is not going to become an issue. Because it is a BAD tactic. Same with the Millenium Fortress or Lambda Fortress. Is running away cheesy, sure. But, he was winning. The burden of initiative was no longer on him, but his opponent. You cannot evade combat for the rest of the game against any player with experience. Even the super nimble Interceptors cannot evade being shot 100% of the time. And his Y-wings should've been able to get at least one into shot. And really, with Push the Limit A-wings, one Ion would've been enough to completely screw up this run away tactic.

If the cheesy tactics were good ones, then the game would have a problem. But they are not, so don't worry about it if you see someone occasionally use them.

Obviously you didn't read my posts. I'm not against competitive mindsets. I'm against people putting WAAC mentalities and cheese over sportsmanship and keeping the game fun.

Well in the Op defense he was told after the game by the losing player that what he did was poor sportsmanship.

Therefore it made him second guess himself.

I don't know him or what he thinks, but I'd say that during the game he didn't feel he did anything wrong

Which btw he didn't.

He played to win and for that game he won. I feel like the player who lost was a sore loser because the other guy decided to use a cheap yet easy to defeat tactic.

Poor sportsmanship comes from things like being a bad winner, or loser.

Using tactics that give you an unfair advantage,like an infinite combo, or taking 3-4 min each time to decide something.

Playing defensively,or cowardly isn't bad sportsmanship.

From someone who has played a lot of sports when I was younger, and have played a lot of tournaments at a competitive level, what he did wasn't bad sportsmanship.

Things like altering someone Equipment, cheating, or after losing refusing to shake the other teams hand

Or in this case moving your opponents ships. Trying to shake the table. After losing a game storming out, or rage quiting. Picking up your piece and smashing it down in the table, throwing dice, and /or insulting another player. That is poor sportsmanship

So please stop trying to say what he did was poor sportsmanship. What he did was well within the rules.

Call it cheap, cowardly, if you must call it something.

Like playing street fighter. If someone playing Ryu keeps throwing fireballs, that's not poor sportsmanship. If the other player can't figure how to get out of the way, too bad,so sad. It can be considered a cheap move.

I don't see how what he did can be anything even close to poor sportsmanship. The game is a strategy game. His strategy a to get the lead in points and then avoid his opponent.

In all honesty I don't see how his opponent couldn't managed to catch him.

It's not like the board is that huge. Think his opponent was just not a very good player, and not a very good loser,and if anything telling him that what he did was poor sportsmanship, was unsporting.

If he can't counter that, then that's his problem.

I mean really, do you think you would have lost? I don't think I would have, as in sure the more experienced here would have torn him apart

I think you are dead right here Krynn. Most people would agree that the tactic employed by the OP wasn't one that was unbeatable (quite the opposite in fact). I think the thread has shifted a little from bad sports to player enjoyment. I agree that the ywing player was probably the biggest culprit for his after game comments. However, that being said, I think the OP didn't actually play a game of xwing (dogfight) and thus reduced his opponents enjoyment of the game. I see no reason why the OP could not have attempted to try and lay some R3 firepower on his opponent and can therefore only conclude that he sacrificed his and his opponents enjoyment of the game in order to achieve a win.

Would I play the OP? Absolutely. Would he be able to run for the whole game? I doubt it. Would I whine if he did? No. I'd get better!

Well thank you.

I'm glad you understand what I'm getting at.

What I don't understand is everyone going on that if it's not fun I wont play.

First off its a tournament. Your going to see a different breed of played here. I just expect it. Maybe people here aren't use to a competitive environment.

If you come across this tactic. Destroy him, and then after nicely point out why he lost, and maybe your can teach him something.

If not then why do the tournament scene? To some people losing is not fun, but yet they play. Even though they can't win every game.

There's no need to go on saying if I come across this I won't play anymore.

You are going to come across this at some point in time, but you just have to deal with it and move on. Especially in the competitive scene.

I like to play. I like to have fun, but I also like to win. In a tournament I don't play with cheap tactics and when I lose, Im not a sore loser.

Playing in a league or friendly game your not as likely to come across this so often, because to those players, they feel as though the is no stakes up for grabs, but in a tournament environment, some really want to win

The best thing you said here?

I like to play, I like to have fun, but I also like to win. That is the right order IMO.

I don't mind lists that aren't fun anywhere near as much as players who aren't fun.

I must be an aberration for having a different definition of fun.

A lot of people confuse the idea of "playing to win is fun" with "it's only fun to win"

Deliberately playing poorly just because you're in the lead is not sportsmanship - it's a spitting in your opponent's face.

A lot of people confuse the idea of "playing to win is fun" with "it's only fun to win"

I think people have made it clear that the problem isn't 'playing to win', it's 'win at all costs' that is toxic.

I'd say, if the Y Wing players had employed some crazy tactics and WON the game, he would not have felt the game was "no fun". Losing the game certainly played a part. I mean, all of us play like this sometimes. Ope, my X Wing is at 1 HP, I could K Turn him and get a shot, or turn around the asteroid and likely never engage, hopefully baiting something away from the fight.

The mindset I think we all have is we'd like to win. Why else would we play? I want to enjoy the game regardless of the outcome.

I decided a long time ago (and I'm talking decades here) that if a game or opponent was no longer fun to play (regardless of the outcome) I just wouldn't play it/him. I just choose to play those games and players that give me an enjoyable game. Some of the most enjoyable games I've played are they ones where I've been completely thrashed.

I must be an aberration for having a different definition of fun.

Not at all mate, everyone has their opinion of fun, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you and I were to have a game, I believe there would be ample opportunity for a competitive game in which neither player walked away thinking less of their opponent and/or the game. And for me that is what it boils down to.

Honestly the term "win at all costs" is not very clear. I can understand if "at all costs" includes outright cheating but I otherwise cannot figure out where the imaginary line in the sand is supposed to be drawn

To be frank this game has very few things that match the usual powergaming complaints I am used to in other mediums (I am mostly familiar with video games, just got into tabletop last year), and the biggest "offenders" (dual falcons, tie swarms) seem to have been accepted by the community pretty easily so I am honestly quite puzzled by why this particular topic has garnered such a large debate.

Because it a more worthwhile debate than the thread on should FFG make a star destroyer?

Seriously, let's not start that here.......

I must be an aberration for having a different definition of fun.

Not at all mate, everyone has their opinion of fun, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you and I were to have a game, I believe there would be ample opportunity for a competitive game in which neither player walked away thinking less of their opponent and/or the game. And for me that is what it boils down to.

I'm perfectly capable of losing a match that I wanted to win, shaking hands, and congratulating my opponent for outplaying me. That's what good sportsmanship looks like. Let me know if you're ever in my neck of the woods and I'll show yah.

I must be an aberration for having a different definition of fun.

Not at all mate, everyone has their opinion of fun, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you and I were to have a game, I believe there would be ample opportunity for a competitive game in which neither player walked away thinking less of their opponent and/or the game. And for me that is what it boils down to.

I'm perfectly capable of losing a match that I wanted to win, shaking hands, and congratulating my opponent for outplaying me. That's what good sportsmanship looks like. Let me know if you're ever in my neck of the woods and I'll show yah.

And that, WW is why you would be an enjoyable opponent. Perfectly said. A game you WANTED to win (for all the competitive types) but able to play fairly and in the spirit of the game even when you lose.

I would say it isn't bad sportsmanship.
He gained an early advantage, as far as points go.
Once the clock runs out, he will have a full victory.

He decided to lean hard on this strategy, putting the opponent in a catch-22: Alter your tactics to that with which you are unfamiilar, or lose.

Had the opponent been able to even shrink the point-lead to fewer than 12 points, by, say, killing a single A-Wing, the Original Poster would have been in a position in which he would have had to re-agress, and played into the 2nd player's ultimate strategy.

Why the Y-Wing player didn't see this option is immaterial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This tactic isn't akin to running the clock down for the judges to call in M:tG, as the win condition has already been fully lain out in the rules, and is not subject to a draw scenario, as would be the case in a true Stalling violation.

This is the equivalent of running a Blue Control/Counterspell deck, and is both powerful and worth keeping. And thoroughly annoying to play against.

I would say it isn't bad sportsmanship.

He gained an early advantage, as far as points go.

Once the clock runs out, he will have a full victory.

He decided to lean hard on this strategy, putting the opponent in a catch-22: Alter your tactics to that with which you are unfamiilar, or lose.

Had the opponent been able to even shrink the point-lead to fewer than 12 points, by, say, killing a single A-Wing, the Original Poster would have been in a position in which he would have had to re-agress, and played into the 2nd player's ultimate strategy.

Why the Y-Wing player didn't see this option is immaterial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This tactic isn't akin to running the clock down for the judges to call in M:tG, as the win condition has already been fully lain out in the rules, and is not subject to a draw scenario, as would be the case in a true Stalling violation.

This is the equivalent of running a Blue Control/Counterspell deck, and is both powerful and worth keeping. And thoroughly annoying to play against.

Which, unfortunately, is why Wizards no longer prints viable counterspells.

I would say it isn't bad sportsmanship.

He gained an early advantage, as far as points go.

Once the clock runs out, he will have a full victory.

He decided to lean hard on this strategy, putting the opponent in a catch-22: Alter your tactics to that with which you are unfamiilar, or lose.

Had the opponent been able to even shrink the point-lead to fewer than 12 points, by, say, killing a single A-Wing, the Original Poster would have been in a position in which he would have had to re-agress, and played into the 2nd player's ultimate strategy.

Why the Y-Wing player didn't see this option is immaterial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This tactic isn't akin to running the clock down for the judges to call in M:tG, as the win condition has already been fully lain out in the rules, and is not subject to a draw scenario, as would be the case in a true Stalling violation.

This is the equivalent of running a Blue Control/Counterspell deck, and is both powerful and worth keeping. And thoroughly annoying to play against.

Which, unfortunately, is why Wizards no longer prints viable counterspells.

The providence of WB and RB Control during the Return to Ravnica block seems to have slipped your mind.

I'm assuming you mean U and not B. No, the ubiquity of control decks has not slipped my mind. It has always been a powerhouse in constructed formats, and always will be. But it's been a long time since blue's slice of the color pie embraced true permission. Wizards recognized some years ago that it's just no fun to play against, along with land destruction. If we're just talking about counterspells, the last time they printed something approximating a viable, unconditional counterspell was Mana Leak, and they've acknowledged that even that much was a mistake.

It's totally legit. His army was not able to deal with your type of army that is his fault not yours. It was just a bad matchup for him.

I don't think anyone is disputing the legitimacy of the OP game style merely the enjoyment to be had for his opponent (and the OP). He could have played a conservative manoeuvre/evade game and still been attempting to put R3 shots on his opponent. Same result, arguably better game for BOTH players.