Tonight, I was blindsided. My playstyle caused a player to rage-quit, and announce that I was no longer welcome playing in their home, further citing that they get enraged playing against me irrespective of the game.

No, I was not fortressing. Nor was I cheating, or even rules-lawyering or slow-playing.
I chose, in a Furball, to not attack. Twice.
The first was simply that chip-damage at a Shuttle from Range 3 wasn't worth any hurt feelings that may result, as I didn't intend to actually engage that craft yet.
The second was calculated: Both he and I were in the arc of a Mangler Wild-Space Fringer (Point limit 35), and the WSF was target-locked on him. I deemed that attacking the WSF might draw him to attack me instead of him, and therefore elected not to attack.

How could I have seen this coming?

Was I seriously that far in the wrong to not attack?
Is there anything I can do to prevent such things in the future?
If this happened in your FLGS, how would you react?

In the mean-time, it's highly unlikely I'll get to play X-Wing in the near future, as his home is the spot we typically congregate to play. Our FLGS is mostly online, and has to rent additional space to hold tournaments, so they're quite rare.

Almost lost friendships over many a game of Axis & Allies.

In the end, it's just a game.

You said that this person is annoyed at you regardless of the game. You also said that it was a furball, implying that there were other people around.

One of two things is happening: your host is seriously touchy and prone to offense, -or- you are doing things obnoxiously without realizing what you are doing.

You can't do anything about the former. So let's assume it's the latter.

If there were other people around, have a conversation with them. Find out from them what behaviors you engage in that are offputting. Figure out if there is anything that you're doing that you need to be doing differently.

It may be that the other guy is, in fact, crazy. If so: yay(ish)! But be prepared for the other guy to not be crazy. Prepare yourself to learn that you are at fault, and that you need to fix your behavior. It's... Unpleasant. But if it's necessary, you need to learn.

You probably need to find a different group of playmates. It sounds like you like to play seriously (not that there's anything wrong with that), but you were playing with a more group that wants to play more casual/social (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I think you should hit up some serious players at the next tournament and see if they want to get a regular group going.

I mean, based on what you just described, it sounds like they just wanted a zany, fun, free for all furball, and you had already started strategizing at a different level, that was probably the tipping point. So in order...

1. I'm not sure you could have seen this coming, though comments such as, "ARE YOU F'IN SERIOUS?" after the first move might tip you off.

2. No and Yes. You had a great plan to win the game, sounds like your hosts just wanted to chuck some dice. So no, in a serious group those were wise moves. In a casual group, they may consider that bad form.

3. You should play the way you want, but in the future, if you are a serious gamer and strategizer, that's who you should try to play with. I mean, you might be able to fake not caring about the game, but ask yourself would it still be fun for you?

4. This wasn't an FLGS, it was a private home by the sounds of it.

If you can't get local games, it sure sounds like Vassal may be up your alley. Sorry it didn't work out, man.

I'm sorry to hear that, Draco.

As to your questions;

1: That really depends on the dynamic between you, the player who quit, and the others involved. I know I can get frustrated with players who have a different approach to gaming than me. I'm a pretty quiet thinker, while one of my oldest friends processes the game verbally to the point of narrating what (he thinks) my choices are as I am about to reveal them; this comes across as either condescending (when he's winning) or whiny (when I am). We've known each other for ages, so I get it, but if I didn't know him so well it would really piss me off. It's about being aware of how you might be perceived, and deciding whether you're okay with that; I try to show my enjoyment a little more visibly to offset my quiet demeanour during games, which probably makes me seem cold and calculating to him.

2: You're totally within the game mechanics, and there are even times in standard games where it is tactically better to not attack at all. It's along the same lines as choosing whether to spend tokens or trigger "once per round" abilities, or hold them against a possible future attack. Although in a casual environment it might not necessarily be the most entertaining thing to do if those were your only possible attacks each round, a multiplayer furball is a social game almost as much as it is a tactical one, so everyone should expect, be prepared for, and even look forward to a certain amount of skulduggery and backstabbing. Is it acceptable in that play group to gang up on each other in a furball, or do pilots issue challenges and duel each other without interference?

3: It really depends on what caused this, which we can't answer for you. Asking what the other players thought of your play might help you figure that out, but then again it might not. Other than that, the only thing I can really think of is asking a group about the gaming etiquette in certain situations. "Are you guys okay with X? Do you mind if I Y?" You can even make this part of the fun, pretending to plead with the the Fringer player to spare you if you hold your fire in return. And if he doesn't, then the players can all have a good laugh at the next furball where your fictional deceased pilot's enraged cousin swears to claim his revenge!

4: As others have said, this sounds more like a private gaming group than a LGS, and their friendliness is in question at the moment. If you're asking about your actions, I'd either compliment your cunning or joke about your pilot's timidity, and then concoct a convoluted argument, shrewd negotiation, and/or heartfelt plea to the players controlling the Lambda and YT-2400 as to why they should target you anyways! If you're asking about the host's actions, I'd probably leave too; unless you're leaving out (intentionally or otherwise) a lot of other context, he's being incredibly disrespectful and petty, and that's not someone I'd like to game with. Plus, I find the idea of ragequitting in general (which I understand as refusing to continue a game in progress because of one's emotional reaction to an opponent's tactical play) extremely distasteful.

I hope you find other places or opportunities to play soon.

That is indeed a pretty lame and anti-fun tactic. You should all agree not to attack each other and watch a movie instead.

Looks to me that you chose not to take an action that benefited him and he flipped out over it. I'm not seeing how you're in the wrong here.

That's a bizarre thing to be upset about. If someone in a furball is clearly trying to hold back to the end we usually just all gun hard at them to punish the tactic. We don't rage-quit lol.

First time I ever ran a furball with friends, someone I had just met came over. Nice guy, chose to not attack anyone throughout the game after specifically asking whether you *have* to attack. I was quite an aggressor in this game and started attacking him. He responded in kind but before that had no intention of attacking anyone. We then spent several rounds missing each other with attacks (PtL A-Wing and Darth Vader, constant misses) while everyone else faced off around the table. He had to go early so he had his A-Wing take a 5 straight off the table.

Strangest game I've played but it was fun seeing a different perspective and thought process.

1. How could I have seen this coming?

2. Was I seriously that far in the wrong to not attack?

3. Is there anything I can do to prevent such things in the future?

4. If this happened in your FLGS, how would you react?

1. I don't think you could have seen it coming.

2. Not really, the rules state you may perform an attack. It's legal to choose to never attack, though that would go opposite of what the game is all about.

3. Maybe you should approach your friend at another time when he's calm and talk to him about that game. Ask him what really bothered him and see if there's anything that can be done to remedy the situation. You may not have been in the wrong but a game isn't really worth getting hurt feelings.

4. If this happened at the FLGS I'd ask them why they feel that what I'm doing is wrong. I'd pretty much do what I just suggested to you. If they are heated and won't talk I'll come back to them about it when they are calm.

That is a difficult place to be. I want to second the advice to seek input from folks that were there with you. Does your host have issues with any of them? That may mean it is the host and not you. If thst is the case you may be able to become the host. Assuming you have some space to play.

Be willing to find out you have an off putting mannerism or that jokes you thought were funny came off as insults.. Sometimes it is hard to know.

It could also be totally unrelated, host could have had a horrible day/month/year...

First of all, free for all battles are stupid, they're 100% politics and as soon as someone gains the lead they're crushed by everyone else and the guy that was in second the whole game ends up winning.

When you have a lot of players together, just make two big teams.

Tonight, I was blindsided. My playstyle caused a player to rage-quit, and announce that I was no longer welcome playing in their home, further citing that they get enraged playing against me irrespective of the game.

No, I was not fortressing. Nor was I cheating, or even rules-lawyering or slow-playing.

I chose, in a Furball, to not attack. Twice.

The first was simply that chip-damage at a Shuttle from Range 3 wasn't worth any hurt feelings that may result, as I didn't intend to actually engage that craft yet.

The second was calculated: Both he and I were in the arc of a Mangler Wild-Space Fringer (Point limit 35), and the WSF was target-locked on him. I deemed that attacking the WSF might draw him to attack me instead of him, and therefore elected not to attack.

How could I have seen this coming?

Was I seriously that far in the wrong to not attack?

Is there anything I can do to prevent such things in the future?

If this happened in your FLGS, how would you react?

In the mean-time, it's highly unlikely I'll get to play X-Wing in the near future, as his home is the spot we typically congregate to play. Our FLGS is mostly online, and has to rent additional space to hold tournaments, so they're quite rare.

In fact, next time you play a game with him, make your objective to make this person lose, it will be a much more enjoyable experience than trying to win yourself, it's also easier. I used to be friends with a guy who I witnessed cheating on his nice girlfriend. When I met her I felt bad for her as she was deserving of better, so I told her what happened and she dumped him. After the friend finally got over it, we started to hang out again. We played D&D together once or twice, and I named my character, "**** X", X being his name and did nothing but attack his character. He got very mad lol.

Man, that's some problem.

I get flak for shooting. you get flak for not shooting. =)

No clue. One of my friends I play X-Wing with can get a little... feisty... but it's the heat of the game and afterwards we all have a good laugh and talk about the fun in the game.

Worst situation I've had is a player in the local scene that can start acting really annoyed if he's not dominating. I've only played him once, and it was a miserable experience with him wallowing and making passive-aggressive comments as his ships shuffled off the board. At a later tournament he was down 1-2 and, seeing not the most lulzy awful squad across the table for his final game, was whining about it and threatening to just walk out and give the other player a free win.

We eventually calmed him down and convinced him to relax and go ahead and play it out. Still, not fun times.

I think the most interesting comment was that he gets annoyed when playing you, no matter what game it is. This tells me that the issue is deeper than him just being annoyed you chose not to shoot during a furball. This has likely been something that's been annoying him, and something you've been oblivious to, for quite some time.

How would you describe your approach to table top games?

How would you describe your (ex) hosts?

Have you since spoken to anyone else who witnessed the outburst?

You talk to him, a day later perhaps, grab a beer together.

You apologize, you're sorry that he got so upset, but you don't know what it is that made him so angry. You aren't aware of what it was you did exactly, could he please explain? Is this something that had been bugging him for a longer time and what can you do to prevent that in future?

It sounds like his irritation has been building up, over different games (what else do you play).

This is why my group has the rule that if you can attack, you must in free for alls. Prevents king making and to a smaller part ganging up.

None of us in this forum can be a judge for this situation based on a small paragraph of explanation.

You are the only that knows exactly what happened and you are the one that can fix it.

If you realize that you might have done something wrong, a honest apology usually works great.

If you strongly believe that you did not do anything wrong, then it sounds to me that he might be doing you a favor asking you not to play with him again.

Tonight, I was blindsided. My playstyle caused a player to rage-quit, and announce that I was no longer welcome playing in their home, further citing that they get enraged playing against me irrespective of the game.

No, I was not fortressing. Nor was I cheating, or even rules-lawyering or slow-playing.

I chose, in a Furball, to not attack. Twice.

The first was simply that chip-damage at a Shuttle from Range 3 wasn't worth any hurt feelings that may result, as I didn't intend to actually engage that craft yet.

The second was calculated: Both he and I were in the arc of a Mangler Wild-Space Fringer (Point limit 35), and the WSF was target-locked on him. I deemed that attacking the WSF might draw him to attack me instead of him, and therefore elected not to attack.

How could I have seen this coming?

Was I seriously that far in the wrong to not attack?

Is there anything I can do to prevent such things in the future?

If this happened in your FLGS, how would you react?

In the mean-time, it's highly unlikely I'll get to play X-Wing in the near future, as his home is the spot we typically congregate to play. Our FLGS is mostly online, and has to rent additional space to hold tournaments, so they're quite rare.

Without any real evidence I am leaning to it being him. I assume you have had social interactions with other humans before and if the dickishness was yours I would have expected you would have experienced similar reactions before. That this situation surprised you tells me that you probably aren't the male member.

It also sounds like you played a clever game. Good for you:)

If you strongly believe that you did not do anything wrong, then it sounds to me that he might be doing you a favor asking you not to play with him again.

No matter how strongly you believe it, you might still be wrong. No harm in asking and possibly learning something about yourself. Luminous beings are we, you must unlearn what you have learned.

Or something. .

The root of the problem I suspect is the furball game format. Any time you have more than 2 factions, someone always gets ganged up on. Choosing not to shoot is suspicious, and will make people feel like you are working with someone else. Try 2 on 2 or some other format.

With only one side we can't really advise you we simply don't know what went through his noggin at the moment he went nuclear.

The root of the problem I suspect is the furball game format. Any time you have more than 2 factions, someone always gets ganged up on. Choosing not to shoot is suspicious, and will make people feel like you are working with someone else. Try 2 on 2 or some other format.

I agree, but it still wasn't reasonable for him to get angry at someone for playing the game type within the rules.

This game doesn't function very well with politics. If you want politics play Monopoly or Settlers of Catan. This game has built into it a large degree of skill in maneuvering your ships well. When you maneuver your ships well in a furball what happens is that the ship you're behind at range 1 strikes up a deal with you and then you just don't shoot at him, ignoring the skill you displayed in picking a good maneuver.

Monopoly and Catan move the game along with chance and have you modify it with politics. X Wing moves the game along with skill and modifies it with chance (which can also be modified with skill by performing actions). Free for all variants throw that skill completely out the window and all it becomes is chance and politics.

threatening to just walk out and give the other player a free win.

Not much of a threat.

The root of the problem I suspect is the furball game format. Any time you have more than 2 factions, someone always gets ganged up on. Choosing not to shoot is suspicious, and will make people feel like you are working with someone else.

Not if you play it properly. Ganging up on the weakest is an amateur move. If you gang up on the small guy, the better players will contribute a little but let you wear yourself down on them, then take you out when you're weakened. If you hold off the battle to let your opponents kill each other, you'll become obviously stronger and all attack you because the alternative is to attack each other and hand you the win.

An example is a game I played a while back which came down to two Heavy Scyks and a Binayre versus a two hit point Mangler Ten with two full health Prototype Pilots versus old style Echo, a heavily damaged Captain Yorr and a one hit point old style Whisper. If Scum and Rebel kill each other, Empire wins. Scum can (and did) take down the Phantoms. Rebel probably could with Ten but stands a slightly worse chance. What happened here is that Rebel and Scum stopped shooting each other until they were confident they could take Empire and the other at the same time, that is to say, once the Phantoms were down. That's not bad form in the slightest. They may appear to be ganging up on the Empire but they don't have a better option.

The way you succeed at those formats is by keeping a slight advantage throughout. You want your opponents to wear themselves out against each other but you don't want to noticeably avoid fighting or gain an obvious advantage, otherwise the other players will unite against the strongest: they have to or they'll lose. It's in your interests to let your opponents kill each other for you, but they can't realise you're doing it. You need to let your opponents kill each other while allowing your opponents to believe they're doing the same.

It's a very complex psychological game but the winning strategy is funnily enough the one the most new player takes: you fly in, you kill ships and you avoid being killed yourself. When don't you shoot a ship? When it's going to shoot a ship that you want dead more than you want and shooting it risks out taking down a ship you need to stay in play. If a Lambda has a kill shot on an exposed phantom lined up and you can kill the Lambda you don't. You can easily kill the Lambda later, and more damage is done to your opponents by letting the Lambda take its shot rather than killing it. If the phantom player accuses you of favouritism or something he's upset you took a move in your benefit rather than theirs.

The only bad form thing you can do in this format is try to make someone else win. If you do that, then there's cause for irritation.

The root of the problem I suspect is the furball game format. Any time you have more than 2 factions, someone always gets ganged up on. Choosing not to shoot is suspicious, and will make people feel like you are working with someone else.

Not if you play it properly. Ganging up on the weakest is an amateur move. If you gang up on the small guy...

I may have missed something, but I don't think we was saying the gang up was on the weakest guy, but on the strongest guy. If someone brings ptl soontir and everyone else has tie advanceds and a-wings, the soontir player is going to get ganged up on.

Multi-player games vary a lot depending on the players and the number of players. Three player games like this almost invariable involve 2 players weakening themselves and then the third player winning. The "last player to attack, wins" scenario. Four player games frequently end up being two, small 2-player games with the winner of each then fighting each other.

I may have missed something, but I don't think we was saying the gang up was on the weakest guy, but on the strongest guy. If someone brings ptl soontir and everyone else has tie advanceds and a-wings, the soontir player is going to get ganged up on.

Which is completely sensible. If they don't focus on weakening the strongest player back into the pack then they're allowing that player to get ahead.

Three player games like this almost invariable involve 2 players weakening themselves and then the third player winning.

Which is why the two need to be constantly aware of the third. If the third player wins here it's because the two played badly by allowing the third to hold off. The way three player games I play tend to go (where all the players are pretty competent) is everyone dividing their forces to each opponent, usually by converging on a central point. It's very easy to stop people trying to "game the system" by being aware of anyone trying to do it. You've got to keep an eye on each player's strength.