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 1/2 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.

1. Even if playing by the rules on your rounds in a timely manner, your are playing only for a stalemate / time expired conditions. In said condition, is a sub condition that will award you the winner.
2. This tactic doesn't really encourage a fun environment to play in. Unless there is a gold medal award like "A New Hope", spread the fun.
3. Repeated use by one or more players would discourage new comers as well as loyal / casual players.

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.

If I were in the same position as the OP, and you told me to alter my tactics, I would politely refuse. I mean, what are you giving me the warning for, exactly? At what point do you escalate the warning? If I don't take a shot on the next round? What about the one after that? What if I ask why you're giving me the warning when my opponent is also refusing to engage? Hell, at what point do you give the warning? After one round of no combat? Two? Three? Would the amount of time left on the clock affect your decision?

IMO, unless game rules are being broken, you should not be telling either player how to maneuver his ships. Otherwise you cross from running the tournament to affecting its outcome, which would be wrong.

I didn't read all 10 pages of replies so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but the list the opponent was flying was just as cheesy as the list OP was flying, just for different reasons. In response to those who say OP was at fault for flying his list to its advantage in a tournament (not a strictly casual game), if OP instead were flying all Interceptors, we would be hearing a completely different story where his opponent was the one at fault for flying a cheesy list. Sure, the tactics would be different, but it would still boil down to the fact that if both sides played to their strengths, one side would have a distinct and significant advantage over the other.

Also, it's not like Y-Wings are snails. The opponent could have - and should have at least attempted to - avoid a range 3 confrontation. A mistake was made, and it was payed for dearly.

I understand the sentiment, and I too would be frustrated if I were flying the Y-Wings, but if you bring paper to a game and your opponent brings scissors, don't be upset when he starts cutting you up. It's no one's fault, just an unfortunate match up that could be avoided by not building your list to have such glaring weaknesses.

With that being said, if this were a friendly non-tournament game and I were the Y-Wing guy, I probably would have ceded as soon as it was apparent that OP intended to just fly away. Unless I were in a really good mood.

What is a player obligated to offer their opponent in order to display good sportsmanship? I think this particular example has been beat to death, without actually addressing the core issue.

My instinct says that a player agrees to play by the rules as written, to smile and talk courteously with the opponent, to attempt to win, to acknowledge your opponents efforts to do the same, and to accept the whims of dice graciously in either defeat or victory. Have I missed something?

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).

Woah, no, not at all. Did you think thst sledgehammer of a zero tolerance policy through before you typed it?!

There is an old article I think you should read titled, "playing to win".

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

Lots of tournaments have rules in addition to the base set and the clock is no less valid than any of the rest of them. A stalemate is not a loss, if the y wing pilot refused to modify his strategy, on what basis do you make the claim that the a wings need to alter theirs?

Poor sportsmanship would be complaining about being out flown, or getting upset when your oponent doesn't behave in a way conducive to your killing them. Not flying your list in the best possible way to win. The y winger was down on points, they needed to get aggressive, not turtle up. It cost them the game and then ego cost them something more important.

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.

If you want to engage in pointless self-congratulatory nonsense then sure, brag about your nonexistent victory.

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!

FFG have said absolutely nothing in support of the use of deliberate stalling to win games. Changing the point margin for victory is NOT an act of support, it's a change to avoid annoying situations where one player is clearly ahead and inevitably going to win but unable to finish off their opponent before time runs out.

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.

It is absolutely stalling. You're spending as much time as possible doing absolutely nothing to achieve the intended victory conditions. Deliberately generating as many turns as possible in which time is spent on dials and moving ships but nothing happens is stalling just as much as taking extra time to set your dials.

And I don't believe for a moment that the people defending this kind of slow play are setting their dials and moving their ships as quickly and efficiently as possible, and never taking the extra opportunity to slow the game down even more and improve their chances of reaching the time limit.

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?

Sigh. Why is it so hard for you to understand the difference between a legitimate defensive strategy and stalling? Flying defensively and aiming to set up shots where you can kill a ship without taking too much return fire is a legitimate defensive plan because it allows you to win the game without reaching the time limit. Flying around in empty space with the time limit as your only hope of victory is entirely different. So please don't keep repeating this insane straw man of "if you don't joust every turn you're cheating".

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?

It's not about being a "dogfighting game", it's about whether or not you can achieve the legitimate victory conditions with your strategy, or if you're just stalling to reach the time limit.

And don't give me this nonsense about "scenario objectives". If there was a "survive as long as possible" scenario then it would use a turn limit for scoring, not a time limit. The turn count is the in-game representation of how long your ships have been in combat. The time limit is an external factor that has nothing to do with the game.

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.

Then play your squints. Shoot something, maneuver for another shot, and repeat until you win. If your only hope of winning is to kill a ship and then stall until you reach the time limit then you just suck at flying interceptors.

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.

And if you'd bother to read my posts before boasting about how awesome your victory was in the last thread you'd see that I have no problem with your strategy if you're using it to win games without the time limit.

Woah, no, not at all. Did you think thst sledgehammer of a zero tolerance policy through before you typed it?!

Of course I did. Would you ask the same question if I advocated permanently banning a player who brought loaded dice, or looked at their opponent's maneuver dials while they were away from the table?

There is an old article I think you should read titled, "playing to win".

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

That article has nothing to do with this situation. We aren't talking about weird self-imposed rules about what is "cheap" (where "cheap" is usually defined as "anything that beats me"), we're talking about the equivalent of unplugging your opponent's controller and beating them before they can reconnect.

Lots of tournaments have rules in addition to the base set and the clock is no less valid than any of the rest of them.

I feel the same way about deliberate stalling in other games as well. And so do the people designing them. For example, MTG treats deliberate slow play as a punishable offense that can get you kicked out of a tournament, while Warmachine has tournament formats with chess clocks that force each player to play at a reasonable pace or lose the game when they run out of time.

A stalemate is not a loss, if the y wing pilot refused to modify his strategy, on what basis do you make the claim that the a wings need to alter theirs?

From what the OP says the y-wing player did make a legitimate effort achieve the victory conditions, they simply failed to force the a-wings into combat (due to the a-wing player's deliberate stalling strategy).

Changing the point margin for victory is NOT an act of support, it's a change to avoid annoying situations where one player is clearly ahead and inevitably going to win but unable to finish off their opponent before time runs out.

Sure it is, this rules decision directly supports hit and fade as able to win, where before it could only generate a modified win. That isn't opinion it is empirical fact.

Deliberately generating as many turns as possible in which time is spent on dials and moving ships but nothing happens is stalling just as much as taking extra time to set your dials.And I don't believe for a moment that the people defending this kind of slow play are setting their dials and moving their ships as quickly and efficiently as possible, and never taking the extra opportunity to slow the game down even more and improve their chances of reaching the time limit.

And here you show the quality of your mind. You believe not just that people who fly to avoid getting shot are using an invalid tactic, but are also of low moral character and would be doing deliberate actual stalling. If this is your conviction there is no reasoning with you. You have the closed mind of an authoritarian.

Shame on you.

Of course I did. Would you ask the same question if I advocated permanently banning a player who brought loaded dice, or looked at their opponent's maneuver dials while they were away from the table?

Those are not at all equivilant. Not remotely. You are citing behavior that is explicitlt forbidden and using it as a match for behavior that I just pointed out has recently been encouraged, even if you can't admit it.

There is an old article I think you should read titled, "playing to win".

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

That article has nothing to do with this situation. We aren't talking about weird self-imposed rules about what is "cheap" (where "cheap" is usually defined as "anything that beats me"), we're talking about the equivalent of unplugging your opponent's controller and beating them before they can reconnect.

Yes actually we are, you have a wierd self imposed rule about how one is allowd to fly thier ships.

I feel the same way about deliberate stalling in other games as well. And so do the people designing them. For example, MTG treats deliberate slow play as a punishable offense that can get you kicked out of a tournament, while Warmachine has tournament formats with chess clocks that force each player to play at a reasonable pace or lose the game when they run out of time.

You are mistaking slow play with evasive flying. They are not the same thing, despite your aparent mental block on this issue. Case in point, does MTG have a rule about how many rounds you are allowd to play before initiating an attack? You know it doesn't.

From what the OP says the y-wing player did make a legitimate effort achieve the victory conditions, they simply failed to force the a-wings into combat (due to the a-wing player's deliberate stalling strategy).

BS. The op indicated that the Y wing pilot could have forced action had they split thier force. They refused to do so. Now you are stating that because the losing player did not gamble on a sub optimal strategy, with at least the hope of victory, it is encumbent on the winning player to play their list sub optimally to help the losing player have a chance. That is absolute bollocks.

Didn't dig through the 11 pages or so of discussion, so I apologize if this misses something. Thought I'd throw my coin in the pool though.

I don't like wasting time. If I'm playing a game, I want to see that game advancing towards conclusion. Destroying one ship and padding out the rest of the scenario to maintain the points state may be fine by the rules, and a legitimate strategy, but in my opinion it's rude when you set out to do that deliberately.

After all I don't like the idea of tournament victory going to a player who has the most wins but the least amount of destroyed enemy craft. A hyper evasive 3 A-Wing list coming away with grand prize even though they have the least amount of shots, and least amount of effort into attacking an enemy? If I were a spectator I would hope at least one of the lists in the tournament would be able to smash these evasive time-wasters before they were able to walk away with a victory!

In the particular OP example though, I do think it was the call of the Y-Wing player to adapt his tactics and split the formation to at least try killing those A-Wings. Unless those Y-Wings were on fire he should have gone after them with the superior ability weapons and try to force him out. A-Wings are speedy and evasive but one whiff of the dice and they're fodder for the Y-Wings.

I know that might have sounded hypocritical but I think the difference here is flying a capable list and adapting (through evasion) against enemy tactics, and deliberately crafting a munchkin list with the purpose of Alpha-striking one fighter and playing the evasion game for the rest of the match. The former is agreeable. The latter is rude.

Norse,

I agree with most of what you have said. What I disagree with is the idea that there is any such thing as a "Munchkin List" in this game. X Wing is balanced if you go back a few pages you can see a diagram where any turret list, or heck any list of cooperative ships, should be able to bring the components of an evasive list under fire. I am of the lets play till it breaks camp. If something can be done it should be so we all get better.

There are two defense strategies in this game, be able to take the hits and be able to avoid them. I don't see either as invalid and I think the hit taking abilities of the ships that can use the avoidance strategy are the balance. They can dodge because they have to. It takes almost three interceptors to match the hitpoints in one Y-Wing. It takes two full A-wings to do the job.

As long as hyper-defensive lists loose to players who actually try to knock them out, then I guess there isn't a problem. I just take issue with someone deliberately entering a tournament with the mindset of avoiding as many shots after alpha-striking a single enemy fighter. I feel that X-Wing matches should be exercises in trying to defeat the enemy's list by destroying their fighters. That is more than half the point of this game.

If I were in the same position as the OP, and you told me to alter my tactics, I would politely refuse. I mean, what are you giving me the warning for, exactly? At what point do you escalate the warning? If I don't take a shot on the next round? What about the one after that? What if I ask why you're giving me the warning when my opponent is also refusing to engage? Hell, at what point do you give the warning? After one round of no combat? Two? Three? Would the amount of time left on the clock affect your decision?

IMO, unless game rules are being broken, you should not be telling either player how to maneuver his ships. Otherwise you cross from running the tournament to affecting its outcome, which would be wrong.

Clarify - Verbal Warning ~ TO point of view. Repeated use of behavior / tactic would bring further consequence. I personally think it qualifies under unsportsmanlike conduct.

I edited my post after you started yours I guess. The whole point is basically the star trek reference, @ the point were the OP had the points to win, he deliberately was avoiding all contact with his opponent. And technically he playing by the rules, it is blatantly exploits the "tourny win conditions" and stalling the game, by doing so. It's not the last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter.

Dogfight tournaments for the X-Wing miniatures game are held in a series of 75 minute tournament rounds.

How many rounds / time would you put up with this, being that they were able to evade / elude your ships? Are you going to play out 75 mins just to lose? This is were things get messy, because it's not how "you" would play. I see it more a fluke situation, but possibly repeatable. I've seen the worlds 13' game vids, nice effects, they averaged 40 mins. It doesn't matter what ships were played, the whole issue is about forcing the time to expire to achieve a technical win. Which happens in many games, chess / checkers. At what point are you done playing a lame game? If there wasn't a "technical win" by point count the OP would have re-engaged the player.

As for his opponent:

It is considered good sportsmanship to concede defeat when there is no reasonable chance of victory. (end of page 2. Tourny Rules)

I don't like wasting time. If I'm playing a game, I want to see that game advancing towards conclusion. Destroying one ship and padding out the rest of the scenario to maintain the points state may be fine by the rules, and a legitimate strategy, but in my opinion it's rude when you set out to do that deliberately.

An important distinction needs to be made between tournament play and non-tournament 'friendly' play.

If you are playing in a tournament, then you have agreed to play under the tournament conditions and accepted that there will be 75 minute rounds. Even if your game concludes in 20 minutes, there will be other games that last the full time almost every round.

Your time will be wasted at some point during a tournament and this fact will be beyond your control. Don't play in a tournament if you don't want your time wasted. If you don't want to chase the A-Wings down, then concede, while other players at other tables persist in their alloted time, trying to win.

If you're playing a 'friendly' game and you don't want to chase the A-Wings down, then pack up your stuff and walk away! No one is forcing you to fight it out until the bitter end. No one is forcing you to waste your time.

If a 'friendly' game ceases to be fun for you, then walk away from it.

If a tournament game ceases to be fun for you, then why did you sign up in the first place?

(Norsehound, I'm using your quote as an example. The rest of my post refers to the collective 'you' rather than you personally.)

Legitimate victory conditions?

In a tournament setting, reaching the time limit IS a legitimate victory condition. If you don't like that fact about how a tournament has to be run, then do not play in a tournament. Casual play is a perfectly permissible alternative to tournaments and you are free to set up any "legitimate victory conditions" that you want there.

However, do not presume all others must discard a clearly legitimate victory condition according to the rules set up by FFG in order to validate your disapproval of a time limit.

If you are unable to chase down a list within the established time limit in a tournament setting, that clearly demonstrates a massive lack of both player skill and also a really crappy list.

When your opponent has already met every legitimate victory condition except one, being the time limit, it is your responsibility to chase him down and take those legitimate victory conditions away from him.

When running a race and nearly to the finish, the person out front doesn't wait for anyone else to catch up, instead he wins by crossing the finish line. The person behind has to pull ahead, or lose.

I think that the game penalizes highly defensive play. The small play area can be seen as a direct counter to that kind of flying. Real A-Wings would never need to come in range of Y's. (Ok for values of 'real' that include fiction.) The limited play area is another artificial imposition. In that case it favors the gunner tanks.

Sure it is, this rules decision directly supports hit and fade as able to win, where before it could only generate a modified win. That isn't opinion it is empirical fact.

Nonsense. The new modified win rules apply to everyone , regardless of list. FFG's intent was to make modified wins in general less common, not to endorse deliberately reaching the time limit as a strategy.

And here you show the quality of your mind. You believe not just that people who fly to avoid getting shot are using an invalid tactic, but are also of low moral character and would be doing deliberate actual stalling. If this is your conviction there is no reasoning with you. You have the closed mind of an authoritarian.

Sorry, but as for low moral character your own words say that better than anything I ever could.

There are two defense strategies in this game, be able to take the hits and be able to avoid them.

Yes, avoiding fire is a legitimate strategy, as long as you are doing so as part of an attempt to achieve the legitimate victory conditions. If you're flying defensively and trying to line up a good shot without getting torn apart by return fire there's nothing wrong with that. Defensive flying only becomes a problem when it crosses the line into deliberate slow play, and that only happens when you start seeing the time limit as a goal to be reached rather than a limit that you have to play within.

Yes actually we are, you have a wierd self imposed rule about how one is allowd to fly thier ships.

No, I have a rule about deliberate slow play. Don't pretend that stalling to reach the time limit is just another way of flying your ships. It isn't, just like unplugging your opponent's controller isn't just another way of punching their character.

Case in point, does MTG have a rule about how many rounds you are allowd to play before initiating an attack? You know it doesn't.

No, but only because slow play is at the judge's discretion, and there isn't a formal list of which actions are banned or how long each player is allowed to take. If you're deliberate taking repetitive actions which don't help you win the game, with the clear intent of reaching the time limit before the game can end, you can expect a slow play penalty. And you're going to get it even if the individual actions are done at a reasonable pace.

BS. The op indicated that the Y wing pilot could have forced action had they split thier force. They refused to do so. Now you are stating that because the losing player did not gamble on a sub optimal strategy, with at least the hope of victory, it is encumbent on the winning player to play their list sub optimally to help the losing player have a chance. That is absolute bollocks.

I see, so you think "commit suicide with a bad strategy, or I'll just fly around the table wasting time until we reach the time limit" is a valid position to hold?

And no, the winning player isn't obligated to make bad decisions. They're obligated to attempt to achieve the victory conditions (destroying all opposing ships) within the time limit. If that means a 100-0 slaughter where the losing player had no chance of victory, that's perfectly fine with me.

In a tournament setting, reaching the time limit IS a legitimate victory condition.

No it isn't. The time limit is set so that matches are supposed to be finished within that amount of time, and ending a match at the time limit is a last resort to keep the event from getting behind schedule. The fact that FFG hasn't bothered to include slow play penalties in their tournament rules (like other games with a more established tournament history) doesn't mean that slow play is a legitimate strategy.

When your opponent has already met every legitimate victory condition except one, being the time limit, it is your responsibility to chase him down and take those legitimate victory conditions away from him.

Except the point you keep overlooking is that this is not always possible when one player is doing everything they can to reach the time limit. It's not a question of player skill, it's simply a limit on how many turns you can execute within 75 minutes.

And, again, I don't believe for a moment that all of you slow-play advocates are playing your evasive turns as quickly and efficiently as possible. Don't brag about your amazing superior skills when your sole purpose is to spend as much time as possible setting dials/moving templates/etc.

When running a race and nearly to the finish, the person out front doesn't wait for anyone else to catch up, instead he wins by crossing the finish line. The person behind has to pull ahead, or lose.

Which, in this context, consists of using your superior numbers to finish off your opponent's last surviving ships. You've earned a decisive advantage early, and now you exploit it to win the 100-0 massacre.

Slow play in this context is the equivalent of playing a deathmatch FPS, getting ahead by a few kills, and then unplugging your opponent's internet connection so they can't rejoin the game in time to catch up before the time limit.

Clarify - Verbal Warning ~ TO point of view. Repeated use of behavior / tactic would bring further consequence. I personally think it qualifies under unsportsmanlike conduct.

What constitutes "further use"? If I don't immediately rush my opponent, do I get disqualified? Or am I allowed a round or two to prepare a proper angle of attack? Why aren't you ordering my opponent to break formation and try to pin me down?

This whole debate is pretty amusing- I've learned a few things :

1st RULE: You do not talk about Time Limits.

2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about Time Limits.

3rd RULE: If someone says "cheap" or concedes the game, the game is over.

4th RULE: Only formation flights.

5th RULE: One objective at a time.

6th RULE: No pursuing, no evading.

7th RULE: The game will go on as long as I'm winning.

8th RULE: If this is your first game night of X-Wing, you HAVE to play.

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.

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.)

I think the idea of "running the clock" is the core issue behind most of the differing views in this discussion and where oneself is positioned towards this point.

Most of the other points winning/loosing/playing for/with fun, WAAC and generic sportsmanship views depend on how you think of using the clock actively, at least in the case of the mentioned example.

My personal view is, that since the tournament rules add max times and respective victory conditions they belong to the same category as the other framing game conditions like map size, starting areas, asteroids etc, so you can use them actively as well as passively. With passive I mean you just try to avoid conflicting with them otherwise you ignore them, and actively would be using them in your strategy (hiding behind asteroids, keeping your back to the wall...).

So using the clock, when it gives you a viable strategy under the current victory conditions, is a valid move. That the victory conditions or the clock restrictions aren't ideal may be a problem of the game or the tournament format, but it's the same for both players and not their problem.

that's independent of the question if you could actually get away with avoiding action against a good player, it's not like you could outrun a slower ship by just running a straight line forever.

Ahh the hyperbole, righteous indignation, and character assassination.

Quite glad the majority of the forum, with a few outliers, are on on the same page with this.

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

Honestly, if the tournament group frowns on this, they need to rethink tournament play. It is probably best if they focus on house rules and other such scenarios. Tournament play is all about optimizing your strategy within the compelled limits and using that to win. Dude brought a list with a weakness, OP exploited that weakness, and won. The end.

If folks have trouble with doing whatever it takes to win, tourneys probably arent for them.

Ahh the hyperbole, righteous indignation, and character assassination.

Quite glad the majority of the forum, with a few outliers, are on on the same page with this.

The disagreement ( which obviously causes strong emotional responses from some) is whether that makes him a jerk.

My personal view is, that since the tournament rules add max times and respective victory conditions they belong to the same category as the other framing game conditions like map size, starting areas, asteroids etc, so you can use them actively as well as passively.

The problem with this approach is that those other things have clearly defined limits on how you use them. For example, you can place the asteroids to give yourself an advantage, but only within clear limits on where they can be, who gets to place them, etc. Since this was designed to be part of the game it all works just fine. You can do whatever you like with the asteroids as long as you follow the official rules, and nobody can (justifiably) complain that what you did is unfair.

Time limits, on the other hand, have no such integration into the game. According to the rules there's nothing stopping me from sitting there spinning my dial pointlessly for half an hour without ever attempting to play the game. Or, assuming a TO would use their judgement and ban me, from spending a little longer than strictly necessary setting each dial, but playing with a strategy of generating as many additional turns as possible to give myself lots of those little time-wasting increments. There's no possible way to use the clock as a strategy without running straight into sportsmanship limits that are necessary to have a functioning game.

What constitutes "further use"? If I don't immediately rush my opponent, do I get disqualified? Or am I allowed a round or two to prepare a proper angle of attack? Why aren't you ordering my opponent to break formation and try to pin me down?

Why is it so hard to understand the difference between a legitimate defensive strategy that attempts to kill everything, but without rushing head-on into combat, and a stalling strategy that has no hope of winning the game unless there is a time limit imposed? Please stop making ridiculous straw man arguments about how people are insisting on slow play punishments if you don't mindlessly joust every turn.

What if it was the last three minutes, and I'm up by a ship? Am I allowed to cut and run and preserve my lead then? What about the last 5 minutes? The last 10? The last 20? Or would you require me to suicide my ships into my opponent no matter what?

No to all of the above. You're expected to make a good-faith effort to win the game by achieving the victory condition of destroying all of your opponent's ships. If you abandon any realistic hope of achieving this victory condition in favor of attempting to reach the time limit then you're guilty of stalling and poor sportsmanship.

And, again, enough with the straw man arguments about being required to suicide your ships. That's not what anybody is saying.

This is the problem I would have with someone trying to tell me not to maneuver away from my opponent.

Do you understand the difference between temporarily maneuvering away from your opponent to avoid a situation where they have the advantage, followed by attempting to kill their ships in a better situation, and maneuvering away from your opponent with no intent to ever come back, and depending on the time limit to save you?

Why is the pursuing player considered to be "putting up with" anything? He has options to pin down the opposing ships, he's simply not willing to take the risk involved with doing it. Why is his opponent being punished for that?

Because they're executing a strategy that can win the game without reaching the time limit. The stalling player isn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

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.

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.)

If someone allows a toddler to enroll in a tournament, kid better be tough, 'cuz I'm not pulling punches against him.

A wise man once said " Life is pain , highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.'"

I'm all about conducive learning experiences for new players, but if you show up at a tournament, expect my best, 'cuz I dun care who you are, that is what I'm delivering. And I hope you are doing the same, because if you aren't, you are denying me a chance to learn.

To me it is reprehensible to not perform your best in a tournament.

One of my most stinging defeats in the world of wargaming tourneys was to a 13 year old girl (and it was the level of buttkicking delivered that stung, not the deliverer) . Woulda been 1000 times worse if I had assumed she didn't know what she was doing, little one woulda taken me to task for that.

Further, this is from someone who has spent a little more then 500 on the game, is expecting to show up to the Imdaar Alpha events, and has played 2 100 point games in his life. < newb.