ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Supposing the lists he mentioned were spot on... and supposing it was nearing the end of the game like he said; both facts that I wouldn't care to debate seeing as it wouldn't make sense to make those things up...... I'd have to say his side does seem more plausible because there are plenty of bad sports out there that I have seen first hand, that b*tch about perfectly legal strategies to TO.

As I'm sure many on these very forums have seen for themselves... just call the guy a liar flat out and bring proof next time; or keep your speculations to yourself.

I don't see that you did anything wrong. I've had this happen in outdoor paintball. The other team kept complaing that we were not advancing across an open field. Duh! They could have come across you know. In the end it was their flanking that won the game regardless of their constant complaining.

If you don't deliberately walk in front of a firing squad you've done nothing wrong.

You don't happen to live in Colorado, do you? If so, I played you the game after this one. I don't think you're a jerk, for what it's worth. How did your wife like your medal? Also, I hate how good you roll.

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.

Supposing the lists he mentioned were spot on... and supposing it was nearing the end of the game like he said; both facts that I wouldn't care to debate seeing as it wouldn't make sense to make those things up...... I'd have to say his side does seem more plausible because there are plenty of bad sports out there that I have seen first hand, that b*tch about perfectly legal strategies to TO.

As I'm sure many on these very forums have seen for themselves... just call the guy a liar flat out and bring proof next time; or keep your speculations to yourself.

I am in no way calling the OP a liar. it seems like you ARE calling his opponent a "bad sport"...so bring proof or keep your speculations to yourself.

You don't happen to live in Colorado, do you? If so, I played you the game after this one. I don't think you're a jerk, for what it's worth. How did your wife like your medal? Also, I hate how good you roll.

Alas my winners medal was not the aphrodisiac I had anticipated.

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.

Supposing the lists he mentioned were spot on... and supposing it was nearing the end of the game like he said; both facts that I wouldn't care to debate seeing as it wouldn't make sense to make those things up...... I'd have to say his side does seem more plausible because there are plenty of bad sports out there that I have seen first hand, that b*tch about perfectly legal strategies to TO.

As I'm sure many on these very forums have seen for themselves... just call the guy a liar flat out and bring proof next time; or keep your speculations to yourself.

I am in no way calling the OP a liar. it seems like you ARE calling his opponent a "bad sport"...so bring proof or keep your speculations to yourself.

Again I am taking the OP at face value; with no reason not to believe him, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, having seen this very behavior multiple times myself, I again have no reason to bring his account into question, therefore it is not speculation more so an educated choice based upon the preponderance of the information at hand.

Or...

Suck it!

Look at it this way, he wasn't engaging you either.

I love people who get upset when they don't get shots. I was at world's and took a fat Han list and my first match was against 3b's and 2 z's. The guy sent his 2 z's to engage my 3 and his b wings after Han but kept them in such a close formation I'd just boost out of arc. I won the match and he was visibly upset because "I wasn't there to play the game I was the to play to win." I told him that Han is allergic to B's and avoids there arcs like the plague. Should have told him it's not my responsibility to give you shots lol.

Of course there is always the classic example

Jerk move? Yes. Did you win? Yes.

you broke no rules and did nothing shady and played with a competitive mind-set, so it seems like the only real answer is "doesn't matter, won game"

In Fickle's personal mantra of table-top wargaming, you're only allowed to ***** specifically about dice and only to the dice. You might come off as a crazy person, but at least you won't be a jerk

Jerk move? Yes. Did you win? Yes.

How is it a jerk move? Not deliberately flying straight into a spike trap isn't a jerk move.

Jerk move? Yes. Did you win? Yes.

How is it a jerk move? Not deliberately flying straight into a spike trap isn't a jerk move.

Jerk move is subjective terminology, and I'm really biased against what he flew

(not so much the strategy as the fact that partial scoring still doesn't exist yet, so one or two bad rolls can completely **** the opponent)

When people lose and complain about a game (Magic, X-Wing, video games) my usual response is "You should've played better" or "You would've beaten so-and-so/me if you were better at this game" in a really sarcastic way, which makes me a complete jerk. But anyway...

It seems that your opponent probably doesn't value strategy as much as he values tactics. A well balanced player would most likely have adapted to your strategy by changing his own, utilizing a different set of tactics for your kind of build. It seems he didnt want to do that and his unsportsmanlike character made a showing through his frustration.

I'm sure, had he been a swell guy, he would've been saying things along the lines of "Oh, man, Han is hard to catch!" or "It's about time Biggs bit the dust! Good game!" as I'm sure many of us do even when were losing horribly. But from what you've expressed, it just seems like your opponent lacked a bit of character and sportsmanship. I mean, I get donkey-faced when I lose, but I still enjoy the game and do my best to be as polite as possible to my opponents in the hopes that they still enjoy the game as well.

I wouldn't have a conscience about it at all, you did nothing wrong.

Jerk move? Yes. Did you win? Yes.

How is it a jerk move? Not deliberately flying straight into a spike trap isn't a jerk move.

Jerk move is subjective terminology, and I'm really biased against what he flew

(not so much the strategy as the fact that partial scoring still doesn't exist yet, so one or two bad rolls can completely **** the opponent)

Hate on the Falcon as much as you like, but the discussion is the strategy of hiding in an asteroid field ESB style to force a formation to break up, and that's not Falcon exclusive. Same scenario even if you swap the Falcon out for two X-wings and a housecat.

I wouldn't call it a jerk move, however, examine your reasons for playing in the first place.

Was it to have a fun individual game? If so, you obviously failed pretty catastrophically.

Was it to win? If so, you obviously achieved that.

So which of those two reasons are more important to you? If the first was more important, then learn some lessons about what you could have said/done differently in order to make the game more fun. If the second is more important, then congratulate yourself for winning the league with such a huge margin.

I don't have a moral judgement on which of the two reasons is better. People play because they want to, I'm cool with that. I happen to have more fun when I'm winning than when I'm losing, but I'll try to have as much fun as I can while I lose, because I think you should take what satisfaction you can get. However I won't pretend that my "funnest game" was one where I lost, as many people seem to anecdotally bring up every so often. My most enjoyable games are ones where I win. Flat.

I will also throw out a couple more questions - Were you so focused in on winning every game and securing victory in the league beyond all doubt, that you refused to take the CHANCE of losing an engagement that was slightly more in his favour than yours? Given that you, what, needed to then lose something like two more games in order to sacrifice the league win? Was your decision to not engage for the full 60 minutes (or however long) the result of that probability calculation alone? Or did it start out that way, but when he got shirty with you then you focused more on proving your point than having a fun game, and suddenly it was more about your personal pride than probability and best-chances?

Also, did you know he sometimes behaved like a **** before you even started the game, or was he a stranger? Would you have made a different decision based on whether you knew him or not, or would you have played the same way, regardless of your opponent? If it had been a mate of yours, would the end result have been the same, or would you have taken the risk in order to produce a fun game?

I don't know if any of the above questions have a "right" answer, but it could be worthwhile thinking about it, since you're obviously a little perturbed by the end result - you're asking for advice from internet strangers after all!

Jerk move? Yes. Did you win? Yes.

How is it a jerk move? Not deliberately flying straight into a spike trap isn't a jerk move.

Jerk move is subjective terminology, and I'm really biased against what he flew

(not so much the strategy as the fact that partial scoring still doesn't exist yet, so one or two bad rolls can completely **** the opponent)

Hate on the Falcon as much as you like, but the discussion is the strategy of hiding in an asteroid field ESB style to force a formation to break up, and that's not Falcon exclusive. Same scenario even if you swap the Falcon out for two X-wings and a housecat.

problem is no other ship can do it is aggravatingly or as easily (except maybe the housecat, but that ship certainly wasn't balance tested properly)

Fat Turrets in general lend themselves the most to the strategy because of the lack of arcs turning it to less "hit and run" to more "run" and their plentiful hull can easily lead to bouts of bad dice leaving the ship at 1 or 2 more hit-points, which generally grant victories because the fat turret makes up more than half the list.

Breaking up formations via asteroids is textbook, the part I have a problem with personally is the fattie lending itself so well to these tie breaker victories (which the OP explicitly mentioned factored into his game) and it's something I believe FFG should have fixed ages ago.

So yes, to me abusing the lack of that rule in a competitive setting is something I would view as a jerk move because it leads to frustrating and ultimately boring games (as it apparently did in this case). But, of course, that's just my opinion and the OP technically did nothing but play the game so eh, I say he is well within his rights to take the win and run. Executing a jerk maneuver (would never accuse him of being an out and out jerk, ****'s way too broad a definition) does not take away from the legitimacy of his victory.

To you it's a jerk move for anyone to fly a Falcon.

That puts you on about equal footing as the Imperial "homer" poster and his view on Phantoms and Soontir.

Just to provide perspective on what is blossoming into an obsession of yours.

To you it's a jerk move for anyone to fly a Falcon.

That puts you on about equal footing as the Imperial "homer" poster and his view on Phantoms and Soontir.

Just to provide perspective on what is blossoming into an obsession of yours.

Well sure, but here's the thing: I know it's just my opinion

You have the right to fly whatever you enjoy, I have the right to roll my eyes at the falcon and what I feel are the incredibly boring, dice-driven games it lends itself to

I also don't think it's broken, it's just a pain in the ass chore to fly against

To you it's a jerk move for anyone to fly a Falcon.

That puts you on about equal footing as the Imperial "homer" poster and his view on Phantoms and Soontir.

Just to provide perspective on what is blossoming into an obsession of yours.

I get that "Falcons are evil" is a bit of a broken record but that's a bit of a harsh comparison. At least he admits he's crazy biased rather trying to paint baseless assertions as gospel truth.

I believe it was Sun TZU that said: "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious"

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear 100 battles."

and another gem:

"the opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."

Oh! and

"Control! Control! You must learn control!"

...wait

I see nothing wrong with what you did at all. In a perfect world, you might have been able to express yourself in a way that clicked for the other player a bit better, but that's really no one's fault. And I want to elaborate on the no one part. I don't know the other player's history, and it sounds like you don't really either. It's more than possible that this person really did think you were being unsportsmanlike. Stalling and claiming strategies is something a lot of actual jerks do it tournaments, trying to win on technicalities rather than trying to make sure everyone's having a good time.

I don't think anyone was doing anything wrong. It sounds to me like this was just an unfortunate misunderstanding.

I believe it was Sun TZU that said: "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious"

I think you left off the end of that quote:

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious, unless of course ‘he’ only has 60 mins of an elimination match left and does not have initiative"

How was he not guilty of the same thing? If he was also doing nothing to engage you, why should you be held responsible for that?

Your opponent needs to learn that he cannot play it safe when he is at a disadvantage, such as not having initiative in the final round.

I believe it was Sun TZU that said: "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious"

I think you left off the end of that quote:

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious, unless of course ‘he’ only has 60 mins of an elimination match left and does not have initiative"

The Art of War has a passage for these situations too:

"Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay, is desperate ground."

"On desperate ground, [you must] fight."

If hiding and doing nothing means you're going to lose, than you don't get that luxury, you have to attack.