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.

Wait what???

I demand stats of this house cat!

360 turret?! How many red/green dice?!? Hit points?!?

Elite pilots & are the generics viable???

Are they lucky?!?

- both lose

- coin toss (by TO)

How is the first any different? We're still stuck without someone to progress to the next round.

Coin toss or some other random selection might work, but since there's a good chance the initiative was determined randomly anyway, what's the point?

Chess often goes for rapid/blitz playoffs, and if scores are still level after a few rounds of this, they use time odds (white has more time, but must win to progress, black just needs to draw).

A famous match between Smyslov and Hubner was decided by a spin on a roulette wheel and the legend has it that one player was red, one black and the wheel came up 0 on the first spin.

If the match has drawn, chances are it's used up all of its allotted time anyway. Throwing the rest of the tournament completely out of whack with a bonus round is not an option.

I'm just inviting discussion.

If you want debate-style response:

The "both lose" scenario works fine during the Swiss stage, since the software can already handle forfeits/walkovers. And of course at the elimination stage, both lose means that the opponent they would have faced gets a bye.

The "coin toss (by TO)" scenario does produce a winner, without prejudice, at the end of the game, without placing a particular onus on one player going into the game.

With the chess anecdote, I was never intending to suggest that the rest of the tournament could sit back and wait, the X-Wing game itself is flawed when it comes to timed play since there is no real mechanism for ensuring fair and equal use of time (nor should there be with asymmetry in the squads - it will normally take an 8-TIE player longer to actually move his/her ships than it will a Deci/Phantom player). I was highlighting that the armageddon game (with time odds - similar to the initiative form of determining the result) or the roulette wheel (coin-toss equivalent) are the very last resort.

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?

Want to address this part because it's something I've learned, and applies to pretty much everything in life.

We tend to judge ourselves based on our intentions and others on their actions.

So the other guy could clearly see the strategy and tactics he was employing and knew he wasn't just trying to stall out a win, he was actively trying to engage and win the other game. The OP however was just being a jerk and running away because he knew he could win without engaging. (I say that speaking from the PoV of the other guy, I don't actually think that.)

The fact that the OP also had a strategy and tactics he was employing isn't something the other guy considered.

Our tendency to judge ourselves by intentions and others by the outcome of their actions is actually something that I learned from being married for 3 years, although it didn't become clear to me until I heard that quote in church.

It really helped my married life a lot to be able to point out to my spouse when she was excusing herself based on her intentions but judging me based on the outcome of my actions, and vice versa to be able to call myself on it when I was doing it. It also helps a lot when dealing with people in general.

If there is a chance that a winner would randomly need to be picked in a challenge of skill I think it is better to know which way that will swing before things get started. I'll grant that this may provide a mental advantage to one player but it also provides an added incentive to make sure it doesn't happen.

In an elimination round knowing "the person with Initiative gets to win the draw" can turn the game from the start. This means the person selecting initiative has to decide who gets to start with an advantage and gets to do so while judging how advantageous initiative is to his/her squadron. Once play has begun one player may effectively have a 0 point lead over the other but how quickly can that turn? If the lead is lost then the game shifts again but if the original leader was playing too conservatively there may not be a chance to recover.

I'm curious about the asteroid placement, deployment, and opening rounds more than anything else in this.

No I don't think OP is a jerk by the way, or even necessarily that the opponent was a sore loser. I try to focus on why the state of the game is such that it was.

If your opponent altered his before game and early game plans, perhaps he wouldn't have been in such a bind.

1. Did he place asteroids in a tight cluster? If so, why? No right or wrong answer here, just curious. I think I would've spread them out since his squad needs formation more than yours.

2. How did he deploy? Parallel to a board edge, in a corner facing the center, in a corner parallel to his deployment zone, in the center or off-center facing you? Why? The best choice here is harder to answer because it is so dependent on asteroid placement, but I probably would've gone in the corner facing the center of the board. Since you deployed after, he can most easily correct his deployment in the first turn.

3. How did he open the game? A slow roll, or an aggressive move? Did he commit to a path or leave his options open. I prefer aggressive early game moves because it encourages the same from my opponent. I'd rather dictate the pace of the game rather than play catch up. That said, it depends on the answers to the first two questions.

Anyway, if he didn't like how the battle went, he should focus on how HE could've altered it, not how you "should've" played it.

From what I've seen here the only 'jerk move' was misleading your opponent into thinking they would 'lose' if they didn't engage you instead of getting the draw if they didn't. Intentional or not, that statement changed your opponents play style. If they are going to be upset about anything I would think it would be that. Everything else up to that point IMO, was perfectly legitimate and wise. Again, just my opinion and 2 pennies.

Recently, I was in a tourney that came down to a draw and believed I would get the win b/c I had initiative. Upon closer inspection of the tourney rules that is not the case. I guess the 'initiative win' only crops up in elimination format (finals?).

From what I've seen here the only 'jerk move' was misleading your opponent into thinking they would 'lose' if they didn't engage you instead of getting the draw if they didn't. Intentional or not, that statement changed your opponents play style. If they are going to be upset about anything I would think it would be that. Everything else up to that point IMO, was perfectly legitimate and wise. Again, just my opinion and 2 pennies.

Recently, I was in a tourney that came down to a draw and believed I would get the win b/c I had initiative. Upon closer inspection of the tourney rules that is not the case. I guess the 'initiative win' only crops up in elimination format (finals?).

Well this was the final match in a league, which is basically a swiss tournament that lasts several weeks, it was pretty much the equivalent of an elimination round. Although I don't really understand why a league needs to have timed matches.

Even if it wasn't an elimination round and it wasn't true that the win would go to the player with initiative, it sounds like the OP honestly thought it was true at the time, and the other player could have asked the TO to confirm this. In a competitive setting, you should never rely on your opponent to explain the rules to you anyway. I've heard so many stories from friends who were new players about how they lost because their opponent told them about a rule that wasn't actually true without double checking with a TO.

Although I don't really understand why a league needs to have timed matches.

The league I'm running does. Mostly so we can get 2 games in on league nights. Although I'd say out of the 20 odd games we've played, I'd day 15 of them ended before time was called.

Although I don't really understand why a league needs to have timed matches.

The league I'm running does. Mostly so we can get 2 games in on league nights. Although I'd say out of the 20 odd games we've played, I'd day 15 of them ended before time was called.

I guess that makes sense, I'm used to leagues being free play but if it's organized more like a multi-week tournament then it would make sense that you need to complete a certain number of matches each week.

Yes, we were running multiweek league with timed matches to ensure we get in 3 games a week. For clarification, the guy I refer to as the TO was actually just filling in for the week to help out as the TO was out of town. We all thought that the rule was initiative gets win in case of tie.

I am happy to report that my opponent in this game and I sat down to a friendly last night and had a good game so it appears there are no hard feelings.

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.

It's like listening to stranger telling their weekly gripes at the bar. Everyone takes a passive but agreeable listener role saying uh-huh and yeah making it sound like we're in complete agreement with the stranger when really we only hear that perspective and not the whole picture.

Honestly as long as your placing your dials in a timely manner your fine. His opponents story could only counter with "he was slow playing" I dunno even if it is just 1 side of the story I really don't get the feeling anything was done wrong. On a lighter note I hade a good experience at a tournament last Sunday, I had chewie w/c3po, jan ors, MF title and ptl and for support had a bwing, awing and z95. My opponent flew kenkirk with moff, Intel agent and expose along with dark curse and 2 other ties I believe. It was going to be a long battle but in the end came down to chewie with 8 hp left and his deci with like 2 or 3 hits left. Got one final round of shooting when time was called and I was at 7 hits and he needed 1 more. He graciously gave me the full win which was really cool. On a separate note faced another deci build earlier that day and the guy would talk to his buddies who were not playing about warhammer while not placing dials and that got irritating since he burned close to 15 min of time doing that. Held my tongue tho and tabled him so it worked out. However I may have been more irritated if I lost or got a partial win because of it. To me that is more of a jerk move than what op is talking about. A timed game and your wasting time talking about warhammer. But fly casual and victory is that much sweeter.