As I stated earlier, if the OP continues to play that style it wont matter, he probably will be black listed and not get many games
People play the game to play against a human being, not play against a brick wall that does nothing to help game play and make it fun for all
From my view, the OP didn't do anything wrong. He figured his best chance for a victory was to either force the Y-wings to split up, then take them one at a time, or if his opponent wasn't willing to do that, just take the time win. Why is he required to risk a winning position? Surely it's up to the guy who's losing to take the risk and make something happen. He chose not to and lost.
As I stated earlier, if the OP continues to play that style it wont matter, he probably will be black listed and not get many games
People play the game to play against a human being, not play against a brick wall that does nothing to help game play and make it fun for all
The same could be said about the guy the OP played against, he was the one unwilling to change his strategy which could have made the game more exciting, I really think that things are getting off topic because everyone is assuming how the OP conducts his games, from one post regarding one battle
I had a full strength B Wing and a almost dead Y wing chasing down the last Interceptor the B wing was chasing him down while the Y wing came around from a diffrent angle 4 turns and the B wing could not get a shoot at the Interceptor but then the good old Y wing came in the Ion hit then it then moved in for a range 1 shot and dead. 2 slow moving ships can chase down a fast moving one. If i was playing you i would have split up and chased you down 1 at a time. i wouldnt be scared of your A wing trying to shoot me down becouse you split them up and i have 360 fire at range 2
I dont like the "win at all cost" but it is legal and i will say congratulations on you win. now i want to try my luck with 4 Y wing vs 4 A wings
Edited by X Wing Nut
Well, I didn't want my first post on the boards to be in a topic like this, oh well.From my view, the OP didn't do anything wrong. He figured his best chance for a victory was to either force the Y-wings to split up, then take them one at a time, or if his opponent wasn't willing to do that, just take the time win. Why is he required to risk a winning position? Surely it's up to the guy who's losing to take the risk and make something happen. He chose not to and lost.
As far as sportsmanship goes, I was always taught it's about how you act, more than how you play (provided you're not cheating, of course). Distracting your opponent, wasting time, or being a sore loser/bad winner is bad sportsmanship. Playing ultra-defensively to protect a lead is not. It's just another tactic.
Dracos Unite!
Sometimes there are just games that aren't fun.
For example, I roll 20 attack dice, and get 15 blanks. That is in NO way fun. At that point, is it my opponent's responsibility to purposely fly a ship off the match because HE is having way more fun winning than I am? Maybe a stretch since dice are out of my control, but making the game more "fun" can still be in my opponent's control by purposely making bad plays to even the odds so I don't feel as bad.
I mean, I understand how the player feels, it just irks me that he'd say something about it to you. That sounds more like something you complain to your friends about later. FFG put the new rule in place to at least test out how the 12 pts for a full win would affect the competition. Maybe we just need to open up to this new idea and plan for it in our squads, rather than stick to the old ways.
4 Y's are fun....flying donkeys that hurt when they kick you in the face lol
Sometimes there are just games that aren't fun.
For example, I roll 20 attack dice, and get 15 blanks. That is in NO way fun.
Where you playing attack wing?
Sometimes there are just games that aren't fun.
For example, I roll 20 attack dice, and get 15 blanks. That is in NO way fun.
Where you playing attack wing?
5 Bombers with Concussion Missiles.
I find it utterly childish and, coincidentally, unsportsmanlike to complain about the tactic. It's entirely legitimate. This isn't a game about a dual at high noon and who can draw the fastest. This is a game about destroying enemy ships and keeping friendly ships alive. OP did just that.
I find this quite similar to when people used to complain in fighting games about people who would throw (because it beats a block) or people who would turtle (because it prevents hits) Fighting games aren't about who can throw the hardest punches. They're about who's smart enough and skilled enough to deal damage while avoiding taking damage.
X-Wing is much the same way.
Edited by EvaUnit02There is no such thing as cheesy, WAAC sqaudrons or tactics in X-Wing. No. Such. Thing.
(An example of a cheesy, broken game is Warhammer 40K because it's totally unbalanced and not written to suit tournament play)
With a couple of minor exceptions (*cough* TIE-Advanced), the X-Wing game balance feels spot-on. Therefore, as long as you field a legal squadron and play entirely within the game rules, you are fine.
Your opponent has a problem if they do not like your tactics, not you. Never feel bad or apologise for playing the game within the rules and winning your way. The game has well-defined victory conditions and playing to time (75 minutes) is a valid way to win (unless you are stalling, which is cheating) for some squadrons to attempt.
Sore, whiny losers are a blight to any gaming community, whether it's competitive or casual. They should learn from their loss and try to improve. Complaining on an internet forum about how someone beat you is futile. Your squadron or your tactics were inferior and you lost. Deal with it.
On the contrary, WAAC PLAYERS (attitude, demeanour, general jerk-factor) are a problem that exist outside of any game's rules. It's important to differentiate between the game's rules and the manner in which a person plays the game. WAAC players can be given DQs if their behaviour is not acceptable towards others, even if they are playing within the game's rules.
I don't understand why some people have so many issues and excuses when they lose a game?
This is a Ywing in a 3x3. I have used cards to cover up the range 3 band, so you can see how much area it covers with its turret. I have also included an Awing on the right side of the Ywing, just outside its turret range.
HOW ARE YOU UNABLE TO CATCH AN A-WING WITH THAT LARGE AN AOE!? NOT TO MENTION WITH 3 Y-WINGS!!
If anything, I would disqualify the Ywing player for intentionally avoiding combat, not the Awing player.
This is a Ywing in a 3x3. I have used cards to cover up the range 3 band, so you can see how much area it covers with its turret. I have also included an Awing on the right side of the Ywing, just outside its turret range.
HOW ARE YOU UNABLE TO CATCH AN A-WING WITH THAT LARGE AN AOE!?
A-Wings are just that good, homes.
This is a Ywing in a 3x3. I have used cards to cover up the range 3 band, so you can see how much area it covers with its turret. I have also included an Awing on the right side of the Ywing, just outside its turret range.
HOW ARE YOU UNABLE TO CATCH AN A-WING WITH THAT LARGE AN AOE!? NOT TO MENTION WITH 3 Y-WINGS!!
If anything, I would disqualify the Ywing player for intentionally avoiding combat, not the Awing player.
This proves that Rebel players that refuse to break their turtled up formations are poor sportsmen. Very poor form, indeed.
Edited by RadzapIn the end the cheapness comes from playing the clock, not the game. It's always been considered bad form in strategy games to run the clock, even if you aren't slow playing. X-wing wasn't designed to be played on a clock, but tournaments make it a necessity.
In regards to the diagram above, I'm baffled about the fact the Y-wing player couldn't catch the A-Wings too, have been from the beginning. Suggests that he's pretty new to the game(and treating a newbie to these tactics isn't cheap, it's reprehensible, like beating up a toddler, or more appropriatly sprinting away from one in a game of tag... But until I hear that the Y-wing player was a newbie I'll hold back that judgement.)
This is a Ywing in a 3x3. I have used cards to cover up the range 3 band, so you can see how much area it covers with its turret. I have also included an Awing on the right side of the Ywing, just outside its turret range.
HOW ARE YOU UNABLE TO CATCH AN A-WING WITH THAT LARGE AN AOE!? NOT TO MENTION WITH 3 Y-WINGS!!
If anything, I would disqualify the Ywing player for intentionally avoiding combat, not the Awing player.
Now that's putting it in perspective.
Sorry if this one is from a few pages back but:
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.
For all of their similarities Interceptors have two advantages over A-Wings when it comes to turning over for more shots:
1. Having 3 dice instead of 2 makes those R3 attacks a good bit more effective.
2. Having Barrel Roll gives them one more option for getting back out of the line of fire and back into R3 or beyond.
Perhaps if the Y-Wing player had conceded earlier (and locked in that result) he could have asked the A-Wing player to change tactics "just to see what could have happened." If A-Wings try playing the Y-Wings' game there really isn't much hope for those A-Wings. When turrets remove much of the A-Wing's maneuverability aspect the only thing it has left is to try and play at long range.
So he loaded up 4 ships that could fire on anything regardless of where his firing arc was pointing and you successfully avoided that to stay alive until the end? And he was complaining that you were unsportsmanlike??
How do ya figure, sports fan?
Seems to me like you outplayed him. He took some upgrades that allow him to play poorly and still do well and when he didn't do well, he called you unsportsmanlike. Seems like he lacked some perspective.
That's like saying "I brought this awesome passing quarterback to the game and you spent the entire game making him run the ball instead. In the end, I lost the game because the game clock wound down. Your defense and coach is unsportsmanlike!"
Sometimes there are just games that aren't fun.
For example, I roll 20 attack dice, and get 15 blanks. That is in NO way fun.
Where you playing attack wing?
5 Bombers with Concussion Missiles.
Hey, that's 5 hits! I'd take that any day of the week! I wish my dice were that hot....
In the end the cheapness comes from playing the clock, not the game. It's always been considered bad form in strategy games to run the clock, even if you aren't slow playing. X-wing wasn't designed to be played on a clock, but tournaments make it a necessity.
This. X-Wing was designed to be played until one player's entire squadron is destroyed, however long it takes. The time limit is an external factor imposed by the need to get an event finished within a reasonable amount of time. Deliberately attempting to reach the time limit and win because you couldn't finish your game is poor sportsmanship.
So, there's a very simple test here: imagine the TO declared that the time limit is not in effect this round, and you will play the game until one side is destroyed. Would you change your tactics? If you would keep doing the same thing then you're using a legitimate strategy that just happens to involve flying defensively. If you would abandon your strategy and fly more aggressively then you're stalling and guilty of poor sportsmanship, and you should be banned from the event (and all future events).
In the end the cheapness comes from playing the clock, not the game. It's always been considered bad form in strategy games to run the clock, even if you aren't slow playing. X-wing wasn't designed to be played on a clock, but tournaments make it a necessity.
This. X-Wing was designed to be played until one player's entire squadron is destroyed, however long it takes. The time limit is an external factor imposed by the need to get an event finished within a reasonable amount of time. Deliberately attempting to reach the time limit and win because you couldn't finish your game is poor sportsmanship.
So, there's a very simple test here: imagine the TO declared that the time limit is not in effect this round, and you will play the game until one side is destroyed. Would you change your tactics? If you would keep doing the same thing then you're using a legitimate strategy that just happens to involve flying defensively. If you would abandon your strategy and fly more aggressively then you're stalling and guilty of poor sportsmanship, and you should be banned from the event (and all future events).
I disagree. "If I remove your win condition, and this forces you to alter your playstyle, then you should be banned" is an illogical concept.
So, there's a very simple test here: imagine the TO declared that the time limit is not in effect this round, and you will play the game until one side is destroyed. Would you change your tactics? If you would keep doing the same thing then you're using a legitimate strategy that just happens to involve flying defensively. If you would abandon your strategy and fly more aggressively then you're stalling and guilty of poor sportsmanship, and you should be banned from the event (and all future events).
As I see it, the social contract is to abide by the rule of the game and the TO judges. Anything within the game by the rules, is playing the game, which makes me wonder why some have suggested the op is not playing the game.
Anyone remember the Star Trek tng episode where data challenges a grandmaster strategist at a game, and wins by playing for a different goal? (Playing to draw, the grandmaster rage quits at the game length). Playing to draw in x wing would be very hard, unless both players avoid engagement. The 12 point rule is a condition for win in the game.
I don't want to focus the debate about the op, but about he tactic itself, and since we've evidence that three ion equipped y wings should be able to pin down a-wings with altered tactics, I think we have evidence of good flying to keep the a-wings out of the ion bubble.
This seems much like getting a tech hit in street fighter and then turtling until time. As long as we are not rubbing it in the opponents face and not stalling through phases (for game time) it seems that it's perfectly legal - something agreed upon by most in the thread.
The problem seems to come from "fun" and time- which is hard to define, for some, it's rolling dice and ship combat, for others maneuvering. I can see flying in circles. Why is turtling ok in fighting games? Maybe time - matches are usually only a minute or so long - x wing is much longer. It's also really difficult to successfully turtle, every fighter has a tool against it in basic mechanics (throw beats block, mid attacks can beat a crouching block (soul cal). Back to x wing, turtling can be done with stacked actions and arc dodging, but not every ship has an easy answer or Hwk vs falcon w falcon title - 1 die will never overcome the evade token, but you can try for range 1.
So - why is getting a kill and then evading until the end of the match not fun? It's got to be engaging to the evasive player, as he has to guess where you will not have arc - and fly there, and perform actions. As the hunting player it's a challenge to pin down the opponent, and I love strategic gambits and out maneuvering the other player.
If we go back to the OP, I think we see the answer to why it's not fun - both players refused to engage - it take two to mak going I. Circles unfun. And here, we see the player not in the lead give up and concede. This seems quite sportsman like in the event that both players were unwilling to engage, as it spares pointless play. How many of you would concede in the a wing players place? How many think the y wing player had a shot with different tactics?
I've no qualms with playing chicken with tactics, but I'd not concede a game for lack of trying. It takes two to make the game unfun, I think.
I've only just recently found this game. Am excited to get into it, have read over all official documents dozens of times and playing with the list builders. This morning this post was @ 3 pages now 10. I wanted my 2 cents in as well.
Would this tactic end it a "Match win by 12 points"? Yes.
Would this be considered "Unsportsmanlike"? Yes/No
If being this the first time tactic was used, a win is a win. One could say that the other player was defensive as well after losing 1/3 his ships w/ negligible damage to his opponent i.e. OP. Repeated use of such a thing, or becoming more prominent would most likely turn this into official rulings.
If you filter through most of the posts, there are valid points on both sides of the argument. All in all it comes down to what the TO would interpret the rules and make a decision. The unsportsmanlike rules are vague and end the sentence with etc.
So, on the forums here it comes down to personal opinion.
I would consider it unsportsmanlike: although verbal warning because of lack of specific rules to go by.
The dice god favored the OP, which happens, but then a loophole within the rules / win conditions was used / exploited unbeknownst to OP which ended in opponent conceding.
Reminds me of the star trek episode Peak Performance
With the simulation over, Data challenges Kolrami to a Strategema rematch. However, this time Data alters his strategy by playing to a draw instead of playing to win. Data is then able to play continuously, gradually frustrating Kolrami who's thwarted out of a quick win but forced to engage in a lengthy match of attrition he'd lose eventually, and quits the game in disgust. Data is complimented for his "winning strategy", being himself puzzled how going for a draw could have meant he'd win.
A win is good, but a player walking away in a less than positive manner is also a loss.
LOL@Ravncat, didn't read your post until after I posted.
Just saw the pics showing the y-wing / a-wing.
We have a generic match report that doesn't really clarify anything beyond first contact and tactic OP came up with to pull a TKO. Without a better round report, it's mere speculation and one sided.
Seeing how little space there is for a group of awings, the OP would have to plan his moves accordingly to run them along the borders of the game. But again all speculation ..
I concur w/ Ravncat. Both players are to blame for such a match. Doesn't sound like much communication was going on between players. Definitely a difference in both play styles as well as levels of experience too.
So, not wholly against the rules, but still a bit of a frown upon type move. If you have issue with a player, communicate. If you have an issues with what would be interpreted either with or against the rules, communicate with the TO.
Edited by XAQT78So, there's a very simple test here: imagine the TO declared that the time limit is not in effect this round, and you will play the game until one side is destroyed. Would you change your tactics? If you would keep doing the same thing then you're using a legitimate strategy that just happens to involve flying defensively. If you would abandon your strategy and fly more aggressively then you're stalling and guilty of poor sportsmanship, and you should be banned from the event (and all future events).
Not you again. Shall I point you to the last thread on this topic when I put you in your place for blatantly -and without any proof, mind - accused anyone and everyone of not playing the game your way as being a cheat.
For those that missed that show, in that thread I argued that exactly the same position the OP is taking here is a completely legitimate one. Let's summarise the reasons:
1. For what it's worth, FFG in their recent changes to the tournament rules have openly supported this as viable tactic to use - they are supporting it!
2. Table throwing whiners like iPeregrine like to intentionally confuse the definition of 'stalling' to gain sympathy and mislead. 'Stalling' is taking undue time to do your dials and place/move your models to eat up the clock. It is cheating/poor sportsmanship and should be dealt with. What we are talking about here is NOT that.
3. As someone that loves playing pure squint lists, what scares me about this argument is that your basically arguing that we should be playing the game YOUR way and ONLY your way (and anything else is cheating). By extension, to me that sounds like we should just all play slow moving tankier ships like X's and B's and to hell with any sort of variety to the game. Is that what you really want?
4. Playing Squints or A's this way is *perfectly* in sync with the fluff for those ships. They are not designed to be straight up fighters. The WAAC argument I've seen here is just utter rubbish. As TezzasGames said - you want to see WAAC in action, go and play 40k and see how people mangle the fluff just to win the game. X-Wing is not only one of the most balanced 'wargame' rule sets I've played, it also entirely encourages play that matches the fiction - and slippery Squints and A wings is just that.
5. The argument that 'But X-Wing is a dog fighting game; you need to dogfight' is rubbish as well. It's *not* just a dogfighting game - it comes with scenarios that have goals other than destruction, remember? Also, if that were the logic, we should just ban anything with a turrent or Falcons or whatever, they ruin that aesthetic too, don't they?
6. Arguing that the clock is an artificial restriction that changes the way you would otherwise play is besides the point. If we're going down that path, I'd like to note that I'd rather play on a 5x5 board as well as that would much better suit the fleeting nature of these ships. There are plenty of fluffy reasons to justify not only the restrictions that are imposed in game and our various approaches to dealing with these restrictions.
---------
Ultimately, I can't stand people that demand we play the game their way. I want to play squints and I want to have fun. Strangely, I also want to win and have fun. Squints and As play best as a flanking hit and run type of ship and are supposed to play that way.
If you can't handle that, either as a player or a person, then I pity you.
---------
For what it's worth to the OP, my favourite list at the moment is Jax and 2 Royal Guard Pilots, each with PTL, Royal Guard Title, Stealth Upgrade and Shield. I won the last local tournament with that list, with one out of the three games played using this tactic to win in a tense last 10 minute game of cat and mouse.
The response on the day wasn't an angry mob of pitchfork and torch wielding villagers, it was a heap of 'Well Done!' - as if it were a breath of fresh air for that type of list to win.
Also playing the same list in the Vassal based Galactic Cup that's on at the moment (in which there is no time limit). Had some awesome games so far, most of which have gone for 3+ hours in an awesome struggle of hit and run tactics.
Sometimes I've been the one being chased, sometimes I've been the one chasing.
In all instances, everyone had a great time.