Greetings all.

Long time lurker, first time poster; be gentle, don't break me

Firstly, let me get the preliminaries out of the way: coming from a GW background, I find X-wing to be a cathartic pleasure in comparisson to the bloat that is 40K - the rules are simple and concise, but allow for an incredible level of depth when it comes to stategy and tactics - from the list buidling stages to their realisation on the star map, I find the game an unadulterated pleasure.

That being said, I find that I suffer from the same blinkered view that I usually encountered in 40K when translating the list building strategy into the tactics on the battlefield (starmap). For instance: when running a mini TIE swarm I will stuanchly stick to using an evade on my TIEs, rather than utilising positional shenanigans and barrel rolling to cause problems with target priority and next-turn movement, just to utilise certain special abilities.

Another example is when I give a pilot PTL, then go about stressing myself unnecessarily every turn, just so I feel like I am getting my monies worth.

My question is this: when taking a list to a game, how important is it to stick to the intended plan? Or do you find improv being the mother of necessity and has drawn victory from the jaws of defeat.

The reason I ask this is that many a time I have lost a game by being inflexible, but I have also won games that I thought were lost simply by ... *stay on target* ... shut up! By sticking to the plan.

Your thoughts and opinions are more than welcome.

No plan survives contact with the enemy.

Adapt and overcome.

Etc etc.

^ What he said.

And if you're having fun, does it matter?

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Welcome!

My question is this: when taking a list to a game, how important is it to stick to the intended plan? Or do you find improv being the mother of necessity and has drawn victory from the jaws of defeat.

No plan survives contact with the enemy.

I used to think that was Sun Tzu (used to = last week), but I was corrected by a colleague. Apparently it originated with an Austrian military theorist named Von Moltke:

No operation extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy.

I think rather than hatching a plan and trying to rigidly stick to it even in the face of changes, it's more effective to understand some basic principles of the game and then adapt your implementation of those principles to the context. "Maintain such-and-such a formation" is a plan, while "focus fire on a single target at a time" is a principle; "Use the evade action every round for everybody" is a plan, while "a defensive stance flatters my playstyle and this list" is a principle.

Does that make sense now that it's outside my head?

Necessity is the mother of innovation, and innovation lets you feed on the tears of those unfortunate enough to play against you

I think it's always good to have "A plan", but not always stick to "THE plan" if you get my meaning?

"I'm going to use my mini - TIE swarm to hold my opponents attention while my Phantom flanks and comes in from behind."

"Oh poo, he's going after my Phantom. Well time to use my TIE swarm as flankers instead."

Always go in with an idea of what you're going to do with each ship/unit but don't be rigid and stay with a plan if it's not working or you see an opportunity that you can exploit. Be flexible and able to shift your plans on the fly (pun intended).

You should alway stick to your plan, except for when you shouldn't. Only experience with your squad and familiarity with your opponents squad and playstyle will let you know which way to go.

Overall, I think favoring unpredictably is best. If PTL stresses you, your opponent will plan on you pulling a green maneuver, if you execute a white, you might dodge his ship's arcs and still have a shot. If you've got a bomb, your opponent will plan on you dropping at an certain round, and adjust his maneuvers to account for it. Don't drop the bomb, it's a way to keep forcing his moves, find a spot when you'll have a shot, and he wont.

Many thanks for all your posts - they've pretty much confirmed what I had already suspected: I have the mental agility of a brick

The reason that I asked this was that, from my humble (and narrow minded) perspective, certain builds had an almost prescribed way of flying: mini-swarm, reliant upon a special ability, not wanting to break formation in order to utilise the ability, tended to stick to each other like glue (from the way I flew them).

This issue became very apparent for me when, after getting my Imp aces box, I flew a four Interceptor list. With each ship I was more aware of the situational and spatial possibilties of the individual ships than I had ever been with the TIE/Ln. even though I was primarily using abilities also achievable with the stock TIE (namely, the barrel-roll).

I don't know whether my appraisal of (and therefore approach to) each individual ship changed, but I realised that I was doing something that I had not previously considered doing: specifically, apprasing each ship by their individual possibilities on an ad hoc basis. I wondered whether this was an integral part of the strategy (and tactical thinking) of flying 4 lone wolf ships, rather than me throwing off the aforementioned mental shackles and going crazy wild for an afternoon.

FYI, I won the particular game with the 4 x Ints ... Yay! There were no turrets, though ... Boo!

Welcome!

I would say that flying with a variety of ships is a valuable exercise, and flying against them is even more valuable. As you indicated above, you often approach ships differently because of their name/your perceptions of their strengths, and variety allows you to check your perceptions for accuracy.

Most of my strategies that I use against my regular opponents came from flying their lists; I learned what was annoying for me when I was using their lists, and now I attempt to do those same annoying things to them as much as possible!

Welcome.

One thing I can say is only use evade when you can't make an attack, the basic academy pilot will shoot last but you may evade damage just with green dice and be able to land a vital hit.

Imperials don't use synergy like rebel scum it hurts us alot less to split ships up in order to use superior movement.

And don't be afraid to block it's a perfectly legal tactic.

Welcome fellow Warhammer player, let it be known that you are not alone (at least till the warp storms over GW HQ London finally settles).

As for plans well there is a similar post and I gave him these things to ask about his squadron build.

1. Will the strategy still work if any one of the ships is destroyed?
2. Will things like stress Ion or blocking prevent the strategy from working?
3. What is the point difference between the highest and second highest point cost? (If too high you might want to redistribute some points).
4. What is the total firepower, hull & shields count for the squad? What is the average agility?
5. How does the squadron move? (formations, actions that increase range of movement, flankers.)

These questions should help you identify any weakness in your squadron.

GW HQ is in nottingham, not London

I too came from a 40k background (cos my username isn't a give away), I too love x wing because it is simplier but no less complex.

Sticking to the plan works, until it doesn't. I haven't flown a swarm much, but when I have its 5-6 ships, and I fly them in formation until I hit the enemy, then what I do depends on the enemy.

I've always been more of a reactionary gamer, so my tactics will vary depending on my opponent.

Sometimes when I am playing in a friendly game, before revealing my dial I'll ask my opponent where he expected me to go, and why, and I also return the favour.

Also focusing is generally better then evading (in my opinion) if you have a swarm. As a wiley opponent will happily focus fire, leaving your surviving ships with an evade token they wish was a focus token when they get to shoot.