Last night was the last night of a 4 week league that we were playing. I was in first place and a victory in the first game would assure me of winning the overall league title. Certainly not the World Championships but I am a competitive person by nature and when I play in a competitive environment I like to win.

I was flying a Han/Corran build. Due to the rules of the league some unique cards that had been killed in previous weeks were unavailable to me this week, namely 3PO and the Falcon title. I was concerned that Han was a little more fragile but I was doing well with the 1300/Corran builds and wanted to continue with it.

My opponent in the first round is a newish player but he plays pretty tough and I have had some close matches with him in previous weeks. He was flying Wedge, Dutch w ion, and Biggs w shield and R2D2. I don't remember the other upgrades but I think he had shields on everyone and a mech on Wedge.

I knew that he wanted to keep his squad together as there was a lot of synergy between his ships and that if I got into a joust I would lose. I pictured Wedge and Biggs tearing up Han, and Corran getting ioned endlessly. My plan was to circle the rocks and force him to come through the rocks in the center hopefully breaking up his formation and allowing me to engage him in a tactically superior position for myself.

He didn't want to come through the rocks though. We were trading limited fire with the Falcon taking some damage and Biggs taking some hits and then regaining his shields. I could not find a good opening with Corran that I felt safe with. My opponent became agitated and started to complain to me about stalling. In my mind stalling is slow playing your dials and taking too much time. I was playing quickly. I explained to my opponent that just because I am trying to avoid his squad en masse that was not stalling. He called over the TO who agreed with me.

At this point I was becoming a bit annoyed. In my mind if you are playing a synergistic formation list you should expect people to try and counter it the best they can.

As time was getting on I was really hoping to force him to make a move. I told him that if neither of us lost any ships I would win on a tiebreaker as I had initiative. At this point he overcommitted and on the last turn of the game Corran had an opening and blew up Biggs giving me the win and the league title.

It was a boring game and I certainly would not brag about it being a great win by any means. Were I a better player I'm sure I could have worked some wizardry and won in spectacular fashion but I played to the best of my abilities with a strategy I felt was sound.

After the game my opponent was still bent and complaining to anyone he could about how I hosed him. So let me know what you think. I know that in some situations my desire to win can taint my perception.

Playing a "draw out" tactic against a "Form up" tactic is not a bad play. It is the correct play.

SSDD

You are under no obligation to play in a manner that maximizes your opponents effectiveness vs. your list. If they built a list that depends on staying in formation, they should come up with a plan for engaging while holding that formation. It's just another version of the complaints about fortressing/blocking/etc. that come up every time somebody is beat by a strategy they hadn't counted on.

Not to sound callous, but the guy needs to learn to play. He lost because he hasn't gotten good enough to counter what you were doing effectively, not because of some mythical "not the way the game is SUPPOSED to be played" requirements. If his squadron simply won't work against an opponent who refuses to come to him, he should redesign his squadron.

Not really anything wrong with it in a competitive environment. Sounds like he could've engaged if he wanted to but also thought it would be disadvantageous from his position so was just as much a part of it as you were.

Well you certainly played well within the rules. Flying so that you can have a better position in the game is half of the tactics to this game. This is a popular hot button item, however Alex Davey himself has stated that flying away is a valid tactic. And by the tournament rules, in the event of a tie, the player with int is declared the winner.

So from a competitive mindset, no you are not wrong. However it does lead to a less enjoyable game over all for your opponent, which is where some of the sour grapes are coming from I am sure.

We have addressed this issue several time on the podcast and the overall concusses is all the same, yes it is legal but it leaves a grey area on if it is sporting. However in a competitive environment you should do anything within the rules to attempt to win the game.

No, you did nothing wrong. If he complains that you did not engage him, you can then counter with "well, what did you do to engage me?". It takes two to Tango, as they say,

I would not feel bad at all. You even warned him that he needed to engage to have a chance. That was true from the moment the game began, and he should have known that.

Some people will always accuse of cheep play when you don't play to their strengths.

If someone has a squad that works very well in close formation, then the logical thing to do is to try and draw them apart. This won't always be easy because they will be trying to stay together. So this can end up with the two of you circling around each other waiting for the other to make a mistake so you can pounce on it.

This is not however the same thing as stalling. Stalling is when you try to run down the clock by not doing anything. If you're setting dials and moving quickly then you're just playing defensively and there's nothing wrong with that.

What you did was refuse to play his game, and he was pissy about it, that's not your fault and you did nothing wrong.

Anyone remember the Y-Wing vs A-Wing thread??? lol

Not really anything wrong with it in a competitive environment. Sounds like he could've engaged if he wanted to but also thought it would be disadvantageous from his position so was just as much a part of it as you were.

Yep. There is no way that his list could fail to close for that long unless he was just flying in a giant, predictable circle repeatedly.

how you played was by all accounts perfectly fine, a perfctly legitimate strategy that he too was using as well.

I would like to clarify the situation though, seeing as this was a league match and not an elimination round telling him that you would win due to having initiative was it seems incorrect (it should have been a draw with you receiving only 1 point rather than 5 thereby not guaranteeing you league victory yet) and the flow on effect from that was that he forcibly changed tactics to his detriment meant that he did in the end lose.

if you were actually unaware that what you told him was a lie then its unfortunate that it went down like that.

if you knowingly did it well that's quite another matter.

That was an excellent play on your part. You were avoiding the strength of his squad. Why risk a loss by moving in?

Some people are sore losers. You made your moves, he made his. If it ended up causing a boring game, that's that. You won with a perfectly legitimate tactic.

No, you did nothing wrong. If he complains that you did not engage him, you can then counter with "well, what did you do to engage me?". It takes two to Tango, as they say,

I would not feel bad at all. You even warned him that he needed to engage to have a chance. That was true from the moment the game began, and he should have known that.

Pretty much this. My standard play vs formations like that is to drag them through the rocks.

What, did he expect you to line up your ships so he could shoot at them? This is X-Wing, not Space Invaders.

how you played was by all accounts perfectly fine, a perfctly legitimate strategy that he too was using as well.

I would like to clarify the situation though, seeing as this was a league match and not an elimination round telling him that you would win due to having initiative was it seems incorrect (it should have been a draw with you receiving only 1 point rather than 5 thereby not guaranteeing you league victory yet) and the flow on effect from that was that he forcibly changed tactics to his detriment meant that he did in the end lose.

if you were actually unaware that what you told him was a lie then its unfortunate that it went down like that.

if you knowingly did it well that's quite another matter.

Hmm interesting point. Both myself and the TO thought that it would give me a modified win. Regardless 1 point would have given me the overall as I needed to lose all 3 games that night and 2nd to win all three games to pass me so I don't belive it had an affect overall.

I mean... how exactly did he not engage...? All of my games end up pointing at the running offender and going balls on fire after him. K-turn all day?? Besides, its just rocks... any player worth their salt can do some jimmying and get through some dumb rocks.

Heck, if I see tha build, I always go after Corran and blast him down in 1 or 2 turns. Then I can run from a Chewie falcon.

Anyone remember the Y-Wing vs A-Wing thread??? lol

First thing I thought of when I saw this.

And for the OP, you were totally in the right. There is nothing at all in the rules that says you must play stupid and fly into your opponent's strength just because they don't want to give you an advantage. I don't care if it was Y-Wing vs A-Wing, Han vs Rebels, or Phantom vs Fortress.

If it makes no sense strategically to do a certain move, then you shouldn't feel obligated to do it when playing a strategy game.

My answer to that is... so the Seahawks had the best rushing defense in the league and that other team cheated by throwing the ball against them!!!!! I mean, they're only the BEST defense against the rush... cheaters!

My answer to that is... so the Seahawks had the best rushing defense in the league and that other team cheated by throwing the ball against them!!!!! I mean, they're only the BEST defense against the rush... cheaters!

Seattle also had the best passing defense, though.

Of course, Seattle also had the best rushing attack in the Super Bowl, so they clearly cheated by trying to throw the ball from the 1.

If you have to ask...

My answer to that is... so the Seahawks had the best rushing defense in the league and that other team cheated by throwing the ball against them!!!!! I mean, they're only the BEST defense against the rush... cheaters!

Seattle also had the best passing defense, though.

Of course, Seattle also had the best rushing attack in the Super Bowl, so they clearly cheated by trying to throw the ball from the 1.

Yup, plain and simple people get pissed and b*tch when they get beat by a strategy they didn't prepare for and the obvious way to do that is by saying what you did was somehow wrong, cheating, broken...

The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

-Sun Tzu

Last night was the last night of a 4 week league that we were playing. I was in first place and a victory in the first game would assure me of winning the overall league title. Certainly not the World Championships but I am a competitive person by nature and when I play in a competitive environment I like to win.

I was flying a Han/Corran build. Due to the rules of the league some unique cards that had been killed in previous weeks were unavailable to me this week, namely 3PO and the Falcon title. I was concerned that Han was a little more fragile but I was doing well with the 1300/Corran builds and wanted to continue with it.

My opponent in the first round is a newish player but he plays pretty tough and I have had some close matches with him in previous weeks. He was flying Wedge, Dutch w ion, and Biggs w shield and R2D2. I don't remember the other upgrades but I think he had shields on everyone and a mech on Wedge.

I knew that he wanted to keep his squad together as there was a lot of synergy between his ships and that if I got into a joust I would lose. I pictured Wedge and Biggs tearing up Han, and Corran getting ioned endlessly. My plan was to circle the rocks and force him to come through the rocks in the center hopefully breaking up his formation and allowing me to engage him in a tactically superior position for myself.

He didn't want to come through the rocks though. We were trading limited fire with the Falcon taking some damage and Biggs taking some hits and then regaining his shields. I could not find a good opening with Corran that I felt safe with. My opponent became agitated and started to complain to me about stalling. In my mind stalling is slow playing your dials and taking too much time. I was playing quickly. I explained to my opponent that just because I am trying to avoid his squad en masse that was not stalling. He called over the TO who agreed with me.

At this point I was becoming a bit annoyed. In my mind if you are playing a synergistic formation list you should expect people to try and counter it the best they can.

As time was getting on I was really hoping to force him to make a move. I told him that if neither of us lost any ships I would win on a tiebreaker as I had initiative. At this point he overcommitted and on the last turn of the game Corran had an opening and blew up Biggs giving me the win and the league title.

It was a boring game and I certainly would not brag about it being a great win by any means. Were I a better player I'm sure I could have worked some wizardry and won in spectacular fashion but I played to the best of my abilities with a strategy I felt was sound.

After the game my opponent was still bent and complaining to anyone he could about how I hosed him. So let me know what you think. I know that in some situations my desire to win can taint my perception.

You were in the right on that match...I wouldnt even dwell on this. You played with sound tactics

I hate forum topics like this.

even though the OP seems to be telling the story in a neutral manner he's not...he can't...he is trying to defend his actions.

if we heard his opponents side we would probably have a very different opinion on "who was right"...not saying his opponent is any more correct...but he will have seen events from a different perspective.

and the fact is there are 3 sides to every story.

your side

his side

and the real story somewhere in the middle.

That's a logical falacy. Just because there could be two sides to a story does not imply the answer is somewhere in the middle of the separate accounts. It is entirely possible that one side is misremembering or misrepresenting the events and the other is just plain correct.