Yeah, "highly defensive play" is ethical in all situations. It may or may not be good play, or fun play, but there's nothing wrong with it morally.

Like basically everyone else, I'd draw a distinction between running your ships away from a joust and actual slow-playing, in the sense of taking forever to put dials down and move your ships and whathaveyou.

A perfectly valid tactic that requires the active choices of both players in order to work.

"I have the game's greatest jousting list"

"My opponent refused to joust with me, and then out flew me so I couldn't claim the easy win I thought I had when I saw his list"

"Therefore, my opponent was playing unethically"

"I have the game's greatest jousting list"

"My opponent refused to joust with me, and then out flew me so I couldn't claim the easy win I thought I had when I saw his list"

"Therefore, my opponent was playing unethically"

I mean... This is literally the thought process some people have... There was a guy on Reddit a few months ago that tried telling me people making use of the edges of the board were "exploiting the limitations of the game"... I'm not joking...

Isn't the entire point of most Phantom/Interceptor lists to play exactly like this?

Isn't the entire point of most Phantom/Interceptor lists to play exactly like this?

You mean Arc dodging?

They usually can't win if they never make an attack.

I mean frustratingly avoiding your opponents guns and being the better ship to have in the end-game because of it (apart from a turret obviously)

The amount of times I've faced lists and been left facing just Soontir and not being able to get a bead on him. Frustrating, but I'd never accuse my opponent of stalling. He's just using the ship and pilot to their full ability.

There's a difference between scoring 50 points in kills while avoiding enemy firing arcs and playing a 96 point list and avoiding combat for an hour and a half so you can win by 4 points.

If someone can't see the difference, they are being obtuse. And that isn't acute at all.

I'd say Player B is rather hypocritical.

There's a difference between scoring 50 points in kills while avoiding enemy firing arcs and playing a 96 point list and avoiding combat for an hour and a half so you can win by 4 points.

If someone can't see the difference, they are being obtuse. And that isn't acute at all.

Again, this doesn't result in a win unless you're in a timed elimination match, meaning you never "win by 4 points" or take a modified win.

If you're playing fragile Dodgers, you MUST play highly conservatively if you match against a turret list or a list with substantially superior firepower. If you do, you have a good chance of winning.

In the case of this match, if it was in Swiss, both players earn a draw, not a modified win, and both of their MoVs go to crap. During Elimination, the player with initiative wins and advances.

There's a difference between scoring 50 points in kills while avoiding enemy firing arcs and playing a 96 point list and avoiding combat for an hour and a half so you can win by 4 points.

If someone can't see the difference, they are being obtuse. And that isn't acute at all.

You seem to be mistaking points remaining on the board for points destroyed. If you do not destroy an enemy ship, you can never earn a win, modified or otherwise.

Isn't the entire point of most Phantom/Interceptor lists to play exactly like this?

You mean Arc dodging?

They usually can't win if they never make an attack.

They also can't lose if they never get shot at. It thus tends to be a rather high priority.

DR4CO is on point in this thread

Of course it isn't slow play! If he is placing dials and moving and making decisions at an acceptable pace, then how his ships move on the board cannot be considered slow play. Nothing is forcing you to shoot at your enemies every single round, or any rounds if you choose.

First, to clarify, in Swiss pairings, the match result would be a DRAW. Only when there is a Tie in an Elimination bracket is the match winner the player with Initiative.

So, in Elimination rounds there is a possibility that either Zero points or an equal number of points are scored. Therefore, initiative choice takes on a new meaning, and players have to adjust accordingly. The player without initiative has to play a bit more aggressively when down to the wire with no ships dead. These are the current way tournaments are run, and players need to adjust their play style or initiative choices accordingly if they don't want the system to work against them.

So here is the situation: Player A is running a list of high ps arc dodgers and has the initiative. Player B is running BBBBZ. As player A has a high probability of losing a ship while closing player A elects to use his superior speed to force player B in to a chase scenario in the hopes that he can break up his formation. The result despite a few shots exchanged at long range neither side fully commits. As time runs out with no ships lost Player A scores a modified win based on initiative. Player B declares player A has slow played or stalled the game. In my observation he did not "slow play" in the conventional sense. My question: Is this technically "slow play" and if so is it a legitimate strategy?

First, if neither side destroyed anything, in a Swiss round that would be a Tie, not a modified win. It would result in the player with initiative advancing in elimination rounds though, if I'm not mistaken.

Second, no, it's not slow play if they are setting dials and doing things at a reasonable pace.

And thirdly, since it isn't slow play there's no ethical quandary here, just a supremely boring hour of X-wing.

My interpretation of fly casual would be to fly your tournament list as if there were not a time limit. Take the maneuvers, actions, etc. that would give you the greatest chance of winning the game if it was played to completion.

Let's say you have been completely out-flown and are left with one hull on your Fat Han and your opponent has two full health B-wings and there is say ten minutes left in the round. You could do a number of things

1. Take longer to place dials, execute maneuver, decide actions, measure target locks that are clearly out of range etc. in order to push to time and take a win.

-Clearly not "Flying Casual" and also against the rules but a subjective call for the TO. You are being a WAAC jerk.

2. Try to whittle down the B-wings while staying out of arc. Run, but run with a purpose to be able to get shots w/o being shot. In short, try to play to win by killing the B-wings without getting killed.

-My definition of "Flying Casual" but admittedly very difficult to do in anything approaching a major tournament. To me, time limits and MOV are necessary evils of competitive play but ideally should not alter how we play the games.

3. Run like a rabbit staying out of range 3 to ensure that no further shots are taken in the remaining rounds while still placing dials and making moves in a timely fashion.

-Within the rules. Perfectly ethical. But will leave the loser feeling frustrated and the winner has moved on due to external contrivances not because of superior skill.

Problems arise because the distinction between these three options is subjective and fuzzy. Only option 1 is "bad" in that it is clearly against the spirit of the game and the rules. Option 3 is not illegal or unethical but in my opinion it is not "flying casual." How casual do you expect your opponent to fly in a timed tourney?

Fly Casual is like pornography - no-one can define it but they know what it is when they see it

2. Try to whittle down the B-wings while staying out of arc.

I actually won a tournament on Wednesday by doing just that.

Time was running down, and I was a head on points. I had a RAC (with Vader, X1, Adv TC, and a Black Squad with calc.) in the last game I was 2/0 and a head on points. My RAC vs a B-Wing I think Farlander...

I was pretty close to the edge of the table and I had 11 damage cards on my VT. The B-Wing had 2, so both were nearly dead. I suppose I could of tried to run, but instead I came around for the kill shot before time ran out.

As you say, I could of tried to run, and ran out time. But instead I went for the win, which I think is the more sporting thing to do. I had the PS advantage so it wasn't a super risky thing to do. I just needed to land 2 hits with RAC vs a B-Wing to win.

But as others have pointed out, no there's nothing wrong with playing defensively. There's also nothing wrong with refusing to play to the other guys strength. As long as both players are trying to win, then they're playing the game.

If an opponent has a Fortress Build and never engages - is it your duty to go in and attack - OR can you just fly around in circles waiting for him to come out?

I have not faced a Fortress build or ever run one, but just thinking about a worst case scenario. I don't see anything unethical about it - just boring and nobody really wins.

In terms of BBBBZ - I have run Interceptors against them and have no problem engaging at some point. I could see how you could miss a lot of rounds of attacking if both players are trying to position themselves, but if you are actively moving and seeking position, I see no problem if it were end in a tie.

Fly Casual is like pornography - no-one can define it but they know what it is when they see it

Thank you Justice Stewart.

The imperial list should have arc dodged behind the B's no problem.

The Rebel list should have had no problem cornering the TIE's.

I guess technically it is legal, but it sound's dirty. "His list is better than mine? Better spend the match running away" is what it seems the imperial player was thinking. Of course I would need specifics on his list. If he ran a bunch of saber or alpha squadron pilots, may I could see it. But If he took turr, Fel, or even Fel's wrath, I would have to question his play. Especially if they had PTL or AT. Of course the Rebel player should have also committed more if his opponent had AT. Stress those B's out and get at least in range 2.

So while yes, it's not slow play, but it is a dirty tactic, both sides it seems are at fault for not committing harder. It seems the Imperial player was afraid of dice, and the Rebel player afraid of stress.

"Fly Casual" does not, never has, and never will mean "Shingling your roof with pancakes is a good idea".

If an opponent has a Fortress Build and never engages - is it your duty to go in and attack - OR can you just fly around in circles waiting for him to come out?

I have not faced a Fortress build or ever run one, but just thinking about a worst case scenario. I don't see anything unethical about it - just boring and nobody really wins.

In terms of BBBBZ - I have run Interceptors against them and have no problem engaging at some point. I could see how you could miss a lot of rounds of attacking if both players are trying to position themselves, but if you are actively moving and seeking position, I see no problem if it were end in a tie.

This game, by design, does not present great opportunities for fortress builds. The most famous fortress match in X-Wing (Whisper/Miniswarm vs Fort Wedge at Worlds) featured a two-inch strip of space along the edge of the board where only one of the Rebel ships would have had a shot without breaking formation. A small swarm of TIEs could have entered that strip with a prime chance to destroy the whole formation.

The Rebel player presented his opponent with a Trench Run scenario in a Star Wars game, and the Imperial player spent 50 minutes neglecting to take advantage of it. That is why he failed.