All I wanted to know if this is permissible by the rules (i.e. legal). Any extra opinions about sportsmanship are beside the point.

Sometimes that's just where the topic goes. Yes it's legal and FFG will be watching for it in case it becomes an issue. However it seems most players would rather not even try this in casual play because it's considered unsportsman-like. That's my take on the issue.

All I wanted to know if this is permissible by the rules (i.e. legal)

And that was answered 5 times on the first page so the conversation is free to morph to the wider issues associated with the question.

All I wanted to know if this is permissible by the rules (i.e. legal). Any extra opinions about sportsmanship are beside the point.

Sometimes that's just where the topic goes. Yes it's legal and FFG will be watching for it in case it becomes an issue. However it seems most players would rather not even try this in casual play because it's considered unsportsman-like. That's my take on the issue.

It is worth mentioning that the tactic, while possible, is not generally a good idea. Average pilots and above will easily use Range bonuses and tactics to eliminate one of the shuttles without taking much, if any, return fire and proceed to finish off what remains after that. The easiest answer is to simply form up on the board edge with the fewest arcs, approach slowly (utilizing the Range 3 bonus), and focus the blocking shuttle or Yorr (whichever is easier) down.

Well, after reading how to defeat it, I think I'll try running:

Yorr+Ion Cannon+Tactician+Rebel Captive+FCS+APL

OGP+Ion Cannon+Tactician+Rebel Captive+FCS+APL

Soontir Fel+PTL

Not exactly sure how Soontir does anything in this list. Soontir vs the world for first few turns (aka bye Soontir) then I can focus down either shuttle (regardless of captive issue) and basically win the game?

Cool with me.

I have never understood the questions of how sportsman like a particular list or tactic is. Surely if it is in the rules it is fine.

Isn't it a tad unsportsmanlike for Howlrunner and his pesky swarm of Ties to fire all those guns at my ships - and then have the effrontery to re-roll if they miss!

What about that dreadful chap with his heavy laser cannon, deliberately staying at range three and mercilessly pummeling my Lambda! (sorry Dave but it hurt)!

That swine Biggs hiding behind an asteroid at range 3 - how my blood boils.

Think, and find a way to defeat the list, the tactic, the opponent or a combination of all of the above - that's the fun part

If you don't want to fly a list or use a particular tactic - don't - but don't go all "fly casual" at people who do want to. You're not flying casual when you have practiced loads to keep your swarm tight, or optimised (to your liking) your squad, or dare I say it, when you have sought out the opinion of may seasoned players on a forum - you're flying competitively - even when its not a tournament you are generally trying to win. I might handicap myself against someone new, or my son (though he is bright and my days of supremacy are numbered).

I like to fly bounty hunters, I like to try and block my opponent and catch him in overlapping fields of fire, and drop bombs. Sometimes I win, and sometimes I lose. My mate slaughtered me with HLCs last night - I had wiped him the previous twice - he though about it and came up with a killer approach - now I get to rethink my choices and tactics - fantastic can't wait to get past the busy work period and chance my arm again - that is what x wing is all about - the variety - the ballance - the roll of the dice - magic.

I'm all for debates about whether certain tactics are or aren't unsportsmanlike, but the number of people who don't seem to even understand the meaning of the term is rather depressing.

Gamesmanship is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport. It has been described as "Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end" (Lumpkin, Stoll and Beller, 1994:92). It may be inferred that the term derives from the idea of playing for the game (i.e., to win at any cost) as opposed to sportsmanship, which derives from the idea of playing for sport.

Sportsmanship refers to virtues such as fairness, self-control, courage, and persistence,^[3] and has been associated with interpersonal concepts of treating others and being treated fairly, maintaining self-control if dealing with others, and respect for both authority and opponents. Sportsmanship is also looked at as being the way one reacts to a sport/game/player.

Unsportsmanlike conduct (also called unsporting behaviour or ungentlemanly conduct) is a foul or offense in many sports that violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanshipand/or participant conduct. Examples include verbal abuse or taunting of an opponent, an excessive celebration following a scoring play, or feigning injury. The official rules of many sports include a catch-all provision whereby participants or an entire team may be penalized or otherwise sanctioned for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Since these keep on popping up in discussions with incorrect arguments attached I thought I would reference them here to help clarify these terms for future discussions of this type, which is what eventually these threads break down into as this tactic is discussed.

I view the use of Fortressing (with either YTs or Lambdas) as falling under the Gamesmanship category, falling within the rules but in a dubious way.

Someone using a tactic that causes you consternation and you complain about it is not unsportsmanlike on their part but unsportsmanlike on yours.

So "using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end" doesn't relate to an "interpersonal concept of treating others and being treated fairly"? How does that work, exactly? I think most people would argue that using dubious methods is treating your opponent unfairly, wouldn't they?

Gamesmanship and sportsmanship may have separate definitions, but the two are not wholly distinct. I think, in fact, that in your rush to pluck quotes you failed to understand the one you found. "It may be inferred that the term derives from the idea of playing for the game (i.e., to win at any cost) as opposed to sportsmanship, which derives from the idea of playing for sport" is, in fact, presenting gamesmanship not as separate from unsportsmanlike conduct, but the very distillation of it. That is, gamemanship is the polar opposite of sportsmanship, and as such is inherently unsportsmanlike.

Someone using a tactic that causes you consternation and you complain about it is not unsportsmanlike on their part but unsportsmanlike on yours.

Depending on the situation it could be fairly argued that either or both sides could be unsporting in these situations. But all by itself this argument is a bit like the old "You say you're so tolerant but you won't tolerate my intolerance!" chestnut. Or, in its purest form, "I know you are but what am I?!?", with all the rhetorical weight it deserves.

The first sentence in the rulebook defines what this game is all about - "an exciting, fast-paced dogfighting game set in the Star Wars universe".

I suppose what it all boils down to (for this thread at least), is if you want to park two ships nose to nose in the middle of the table with the sole intention of not having them move, is that dogfighting?

This list would be a breeze to defeat with my current tourney list (2x Dagger + FCS + HLC, 2x Prototype A-wings).

So "using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end" doesn't relate to an "interpersonal concept of treating others and being treated fairly"? How does that work, exactly? I think most people would argue that using dubious methods is treating your opponent unfairly, wouldn't they?

If you don't want to fly a list or use a particular tactic - don't - but don't go all "fly casual" at people who do want to. You're not flying casual when you have practiced loads to keep your swarm tight, or optimised (to your liking) your squad, or dare I say it, when you have sought out the opinion of may seasoned players on a forum - you're flying competitively - even when its not a tournament you are generally trying to win.

So "using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end" doesn't relate to an "interpersonal concept of treating others and being treated fairly"? How does that work, exactly? I think most people would argue that using dubious methods is treating your opponent unfairly, wouldn't they?

Just look at this fortressing issue. Gaming the game, but you can be very sportsman about it. Gamesmanship pushes the "it doesn't say I can't do it in the rules" ideology, as long as the intended actions are not ones that involve cheating (which is unsportsmanlike).

Gamesmanship and sportsmanship may have separate definitions, but the two are not wholly distinct. I think, in fact, that in your rush to pluck quotes you failed to understand the one you found. "It may be inferred that the term derives from the idea of playing for the game (i.e., to win at any cost) as opposed to sportsmanship, which derives from the idea of playing for sport" is, in fact, presenting gamesmanship not as separate from unsportsmanlike conduct, but the very distillation of it. That is, gamemanship is the polar opposite of sportsmanship, and as such is inherently unsportsmanlike.

Gamesmanship is dancing on the line of unsportsmanship without crossing it. When faced with a competition, viable strategies to win can include legal but dubious methods as long as none of them are actually cheating methods.

Sitting across from your opponent in a Darth Vader mask and breathing heavy would be a gamesmanship tactic. It may throw your opponent off the game and make it difficult for them to concentrate when making decisions. Or it may not. they may laugh at it and continue as normal or they may be so terrified of it that they concede immediately.

Someone using a tactic that causes you consternation and you complain about it is not unsportsmanlike on their part but unsportsmanlike on yours.

Depending on the situation it could be fairly argued that either or both sides could be unsporting in these situations. But all by itself this argument is a bit like the old "You say you're so tolerant but you won't tolerate my intolerance!" chestnut. Or, in its purest form, "I know you are but what am I?!?", with all the rhetorical weight it deserves.

I was trying to state the A-wing dilemma without it becoming a full blown argument of that tactic. Basically, if someone uses a tactic that you don't like, but it is a legal tactic, arguing its use on your part is unsportsmanlike. Someone using an illegal tactic is being unsportsmanlike on their part.

Sergovan, if you were sitting across the table from me with a Darth Vader mask on and heavy breathing, I know I would find it hard to concentrate. I'd be too busy laughing!

Down our way we consider Gamesmanship to be knowing your equipment, and knowing your opponents equipment, and being able to maximise the opportunities. Basically, knowing the game. Over 35+ years of gaming I've seen more than few dirty tricks, dubious plays and head-scratching interpretations of rules. But I have yet to accuse anyone of being unsportsmanlike. Hopefully, I never do. I have caught the odd cheat however. I wouldn't consider cheating to be unsportsmanlike, it's much worse than that. It's just plain dishonest cheating and used by only the lowest of scumbags.

You guys stress out to much.

Lambda camping is a valid tactic within the game and no more cheese than any other min/maxed list. Like 8 Z95s or 2 Falcons or 3 bwings. Its a list designed to take advantage of the ships mechanics and reduce its weaknesses.

If you camp all day then you give the opponent an advantage. They can outfly you and win the game. Often vs these campers that have no idea of strategy I, will simply kill off one shuttle and leave them scrabble to catch up on points to not lose. Remember you don't need to rip down the whole fortress for a win, just the 12 points diff.

If you are a smart player pick and choose when to camp and when to move and you will win. Yes the game is about dogfighting but how many dogfights have you seen between troop carrying Air fortress. Its a different style is all. I took a camp list to regionals and I favour it for general combat because it offsets both tank lists and swarm lists with only a change of movement style.

There was talk about its nature when I first brought it up and also the politics of forcing a draw. Removing an inactive camper from the running. Talk about how to approach it, talk about how to defend it. Some abuse from Noobs who had it in their head that I should just drive my ships into theirs and roll dice until someone had died. Now after running it through a tourney and 100+ friendly matches I can assure you that the top players in my area do not consider it cheesy and are very cautious of my ability to fly and or camp at a whim.

I think the biggest advantage of the camp is that I'm forcing you to give me your hand or make the mistake first and that is scary for a lot of players. Being forced to take a risky offence is scary game wise, because at heart you would rather lose nothing.

To those that consider it unsportsmanlike or cheesy or of Low character, wake up to yourself.

I got to play Kael twice in the Regionals. It can catch people off guard but it isn't some auto win option. I probably wouldn't do it for friendly pickup games though as it will put some people off. At a tournament, go ahead.

Bear in mind that this one comes apart a lot faster than a YT1300 fortress - all you have to do is keep Yorr too stressed for a couple of turns to let you stop repeatedly; a volley of fletchettes or similar - not to advocate building against it, but stress-generating shennanigans are becoming quite easy to obtain.

Also, unlike a YT1300 fortress, you're not able to shoot with both ships save for a limited arc overlap. The fact that both falcons have a primary weapon turret is part of what makes it work.

Fletchette's wouldn't work against it, due to the hull value of the Lambda's, however other means of putting stress on it would work.

I haven't fortressed up, but I am flying 2 shuttles with advanced sensors near each other, and have used 1 to prevent the other from moving to keep it in a favourable position. Doing this without Yorr I cant keep it going, and wouldn't want to, but I dont consider it in the same league as fortressing.

Also, unlike a YT1300 fortress, you're not able to shoot with both ships save for a limited arc overlap. The fact that both falcons have a primary weapon turret is part of what makes it work.

When flying it, you don't stay in that position, it's better to come out and engage your opponent, hopefully catching some of his ships out of range whilst yours can be perfectly aligned. Especially damaging when both shuttles have HLC's.

Fletchette's wouldn't work against it, due to the hull value of the Lambda's, however other means of putting stress on it would work.

I haven't fortressed up, but I am flying 2 shuttles with advanced sensors near each other, and have used 1 to prevent the other from moving to keep it in a favourable position. Doing this without Yorr I cant keep it going, and wouldn't want to, but I dont consider it in the same league as fortressing.

Flechette mightn't work but a couple of ion shots on target should get things moving.