The old A-Wing Runaway Tactic always brings up the same old questions.

Legal? Yes. Nothing in the rules to prevent it.

Viable tactic? Yes, because it's the classic hit and run tactic that has been used in most forms of combat since Thrug threw the first rock at Grug.

Poor sportsmanship? Depends on your point of view. When a player throws out the accusation of poor sportsmanship, they need to have some solid grounds to back it up. If you got beaten by an opponent with superior agility, why is it considered that they didn't play in a sporting manner? The object of any combat game is to inflict damage on the enemy, while minimising your own.

It's been said here that the "poor sportsmanship" cry is usually used by those that disagree with the way some players do things, even though they are within the rules. I see it as a pretty large calibre accusation that falls just short of cheating. It's one thing to sit across the table from the A-Wing Runaway and tell your opponent "that's a pretty crummy tactic", but it's a whole lot more confrontational to tell him "that's just poor sportsmanship".

Would I play the A-Wing Runaway? No, it's just not my style. I play for fun, and the tactic of avoiding combat doesn't seem like fun to me.

This does seem really absurd and I think if I played a game with anyone that asked me to switch pilots based on the paint scheme of the models, simply to fit THEIR preference id tell them they were overstepping. It's clearly not the same as using a different model (TIE advanced instead of an interceptor for example). Sportsmanship cuts both ways and even if you happen to know one pilot had a paint theme for their craft that is different than what your opponent prefers, the burden of sportsmanship is on you.

To put it another way, if I get the rebel aces set, you can bet I'm putting tenchu in the rookie pilot paint schemed craft to differentiate him from my green squadron pilots.

It's clearly not the same as using a different model (TIE advanced instead of an interceptor for example).

So what is so clearly not the same?

What's the point of having the model, other than to look cool? It has no impact on gameplay whether it's a TIE Interceptor, TIE Advanced, or just a blank base. The one actual game purpose the model serves it to make it easy to distinguish which ship is which. This is why the tournament rules require that you have the ship on the base at all times. The paint scheme is no different.

While it can certainly cut both ways, I believe there's very solid evidence that models are intended to be easily distinguishable when on the table. There's ample evidence of this, including Frank's response that "having them mixed could be interpreted as being deliberately confusing" - the obvious implication there being that "deliberately confusing" = "bad".

It's clearly not the same as using a different model (TIE advanced instead of an interceptor for example).

So what is so clearly not the same?

What's the point of having the model, other than to look cool? It has no impact on gameplay whether it's a TIE Interceptor, TIE Advanced, or just a blank base. The one actual game purpose the model serves it to make it easy to distinguish which ship is which. This is why the tournament rules require that you have the ship on the base at all times. The paint scheme is no different.

While it can certainly cut both ways, I believe there's very solid evidence that models are intended to be easily distinguishable when on the table. There's ample evidence of this, including Frank's response that "having them mixed could be interpreted as being deliberately confusing" - the obvious implication there being that "deliberately confusing" = "bad".

It is very different; a different model has a completely silhouette, the rules strictly forbid having a different ship on the base while allowing for variations in paint customization. You're trying to make the argument that any difference in appearance is as confusing as ANY change in appearance and that's simply false. No one thinks that all silver cars are the same nor do they have much difficulty identifying two cars of the same make that happen to be painted differently.

And frank did not issue a blanket statement saying that if requested a player HAS to match paint schemes, he just stated that there are situations where it may be misleading and others where it would be beneficial.

It is very different; a different model has a completely silhouette, the rules strictly forbid having a different ship on the base while allowing for variations in paint customization. You're trying to make the argument that any difference in appearance is as confusing as ANY change in appearance and that's simply false. No one thinks that all silver cars are the same nor do they have much difficulty identifying two cars of the same make that happen to be painted differently.

When you have iconic paint schemes like the 181st and Royal Guard, it's more like team jerseys. If you want to stick to the car analogy, it's more like NASCAR than just "silver car". The paint scheme is just as important in identifying the pilot as the ship they're flying. It's not just a matter of being able to tell them apart, it's a matter of what you expect each to be in.

That's the important thing here. You say it's "clearly different" than the ship, but there are a number of players who can identify the pilots by color scheme just as reliably by color as by ship. For those pilots, reversing colors can be just as confusing as reversing ships.

And frank did not issue a blanket statement saying that if requested a player HAS to match paint schemes, he just stated that there are situations where it may be misleading and others where it would be beneficial.

I won't guarantee he was using "request" in the formal sense, but X-wing has a very loaded use of the term. "Request", at least in the rules sense, doesn't convey a "Well, if you feel like it fine, if not fine" meaning. You can request that your opponent verify his points destroyed at the end of the game, would you accept an opponent saying "Nah, I'm not going to do that"? "Request" in X-wing terms is effectively a binding decision.

He says that you can request the right colors if you find it misleading. If your opponent refuses, it goes to the TO for a ruling. That's not a blanket statement of "You can fly whatever colors you want for any reason". It leaves it to the TO to resolve the difference, which means there's at least some validity to the concerns.

Edit: I think the entirety of Frank's response also centers - heavily - on the idea of minimizing confusion concerning the ships. Intentionally reversing the known colors for certain pilots promotes confusion. It's as simple as that.

With all of this confusion I sure hope no one ever uses the X-Wing from the Rebel Transport to represent Luke with R2D2 onboard.

The issue at hand is the attempt to obfuscate targets by putting opposite coloured models in play. Some imperial pilots have red coloured ships in their artwork. Using a normal grey or red stripped ship is okay, as long as you aren't using a red one in play as a different ship.

If you are used to the ships being a noticeable colour, and someone goes and tries to confuse you on target selection by changing it up, I think you are within your sensibilities to ask them to make it right and not try to use gamesmanship to win.

The idea of people trying to be intentionally confusing by placing differently colored squints with the "wrong card" has long been addressed in the tournament handbook. TECHNICALLY, you are required to put a set of ID tags on every ship in your squadron, even if it's an otherwise completely unique ship. Most TOS I've every run under only require that they be put on duplicate ships to tell them apart, but the text in the handbook is clear...

The idea of people trying to be intentionally confusing by placing differently colored squints with the "wrong card" has long been addressed in the tournament handbook. TECHNICALLY, you are required to put a set of ID tags on every ship in your squadron, even if it's an otherwise completely unique ship. Most TOS I've every run under only require that they be put on duplicate ships to tell them apart, but the text in the handbook is clear...

This only applies to mirror matches.

Some learn by reading, some don't.

Some learn by doing, some don't.

Some learn by being taught, some don't.

Everyone is different.

This is so true I am still new at this and I only played it with my son(and no I still haven't won a game yet dam b-wing tank) and we just found out that we have been doing a few things wrong which even tho is clearly stated in the rules we still did it wrong(focus tokens,target lock and stress),so we will adapt and move on and with luck we will get it straight.

Some learn by reading, some don't.

Some learn by doing, some don't.

Some learn by being taught, some don't.

Everyone is different.

This is so true I am still new at this and I only played it with my son(and no I still haven't won a game yet dam b-wing tank) and we just found out that we have been doing a few things wrong which even tho is clearly stated in the rules we still did it wrong(focus tokens,target lock and stress),so we will adapt and move on and with luck we will get it straight.

If you have players at your local game store, go down and play games with them. Many will be happy to assist newer players, and the more games you play the faster you learn the game. Depending on how old/mature your son is, though, I'd leave him home...many tabletop gamers can be a bit...gruff in their manner of speech, and might not realize (or care) that there is a child within earshot.

That's the problem there isn't a local game shop I think the nearest one is about 5 miles away plus the fact I don't drive hurts it more,my son is 15 and is quite mature plus he has most likely heard worse from me...lol

****, looks like I missed a really good argument. Oh well.

****, looks like I missed a really good argument. Oh well.

Yeah, we wondered where you'd got to.

Well heck, it's not like I can't be reached via PM.

"Dude, chick fight in the gym! Bring a camera and the popcorn!"

Yep, you missed a good 'un.

That's the problem there isn't a local game shop I think the nearest one is about 5 miles away plus the fact I don't drive hurts it more,my son is 15 and is quite mature plus he has most likely heard worse from me...lol

Five miles isn't that much unless you're walking...my FLGS is about 12mi away...