Well, neither person is more at fault than the other.

There's no obligation to engage for either player, and if both are content to fly their ships round in circles then they can do just that... Of course that doesn't make for much of a game.

When faced with an opponent who wishes to engage on terms that are unfavorable to you, you've pretty much got 3 options:

1- Engage on their terms

2- Wait for them to engage on your terms

3- Attempt to make their terms less favourable to them, and engage.

Obviously option 1 is a non-starter.

Option 2 is a non-starter too. But not because it produces a stalemate. The problem with option 2 is that it puts the ball in the opponents court and gives them chance to effect option 3.

With option 3 being the only viable recourse against any competent opponent.

Now obviously I didn't see the game so it's difficult to comment specifically, but if the other guy was moving in at least a semi-predictable sequence then it should be possible to exploit an opening in this set of moves.

(although it's worth mentioning that option 3 really starts with asteroid placement and trying to make sure that a list like that can't set up easily.)

I'd rather play and lose than waste an hour mincing around the borders.

Ahh, the old Hannibal problem.

The German term for the Compulsion to Move in a game (specifically Chess), even when doing so puts you in a disadvantageous position, is "Zugzwang".

Fortressed lists have figured out how to avert Zugzwang.
You have done...similar, in that you've refused to abandon positioning within the circle of combat.

From the point of view of your ships, both of y'all looked like fortresses, with the positions of the Asteroids and the Edge of Battle being the things doing the movement.

However, you've encountered the reverse problem: How do I defeat an opponent who will not engage me on my terms?

There are answers to this, and they ABOUND. However, you needed to figure out how to either:

A:) With your list, discover and exploit their weakness.

B:) With your formation, develop a "Weakness" that your opponent will eventually discover and "Exploit", only for you to counterengage unexpectedly. (Replace with "Bait" and "Get Caught" as necessary).

Sometimes the question is "If I fight on their terms, do they still win?"

Unlikely, if they've gotten used to not fighting at all...

I see that a number of opinions are saying it would be alright for players to play out a game like this til the time/round limit and take a draw. Just to throw a spanner in the works, say this scenario happened at a tournament and both players were say ranked 7th and 8th before the final round then cut to Top 8. The winner of this game will likely go through but the loser probably won't and a draw may give both players enough points to go through. Surely playing out a draw by refusing to engage could be collusion to ensure both players make the cut. This is an unlikely scenario to occur but accepting 1 tournament point for a draw and not engaging to risk that point could be collusion.

Neither of you has an obligation to be the one to make the first move. Your opponent was absolutely being as boring as you were.

Exactly, all those that play Tau are a bunch of boring cowards that don't know how to get stuck in a proper fight.

In a SC tournament I've won (4 swiss + top 4) I had found some very nice movements that would stall my stupid Shuttle for a loooong time.

Against brobots in match 1, the guy didn't bother to wait and went for me, even going as far as bumping into the shuttle that wasn't even an inch away from its starting corner. This trap worked perfectly.

Against both top 4 opponents I met, one another Brobot list and the final opponent a 4 TLT user, they both also stalled for time in their own corner to which I immediately broke my shuttle stalling tactic and went straight into it through asteroids and whatnot with my Wampa, Colzet and Carnor Jax - even bringing the shuttle in eventually - and to great effect.

If someone plays the same stalling game as me to see who does what, I just take the initiative and go all in, because it might take a turn or two to adjust the stalling tricks you were pulling - this worked perfectly against the 4 TLT and he made a mistake in trying to stall around his own edge, I caught him right close to the asteroids that I had no trouble maneuvering with and the shuttle came around and hunted a Y wing all by itself.

Stalling is useful, but it can screw you over if you're not careful enough with it.

I see that a number of opinions are saying it would be alright for players to play out a game like this til the time/round limit and take a draw. Just to throw a spanner in the works, say this scenario happened at a tournament and both players were say ranked 7th and 8th before the final round then cut to Top 8. The winner of this game will likely go through but the loser probably won't and a draw may give both players enough points to go through. Surely playing out a draw by refusing to engage could be collusion to ensure both players make the cut. This is an unlikely scenario to occur but accepting 1 tournament point for a draw and not engaging to risk that point could be collusion.

If one player says it, and the other player realizes that it would be benefit both players, I don't think it'd be collusion either. That's just blatantly the best course of action. Can't blame someone for agreeing with the truth.

There is a difference between that and agreeing before the event to just hand person A a free win should person B or C get paired with him.

1. Play with the 75 minute timelimit. You will both be forced to score points in the match in order to win.

2. No. If neither of you wants to try and take the win, you can "play" for a draw in that manner.

Stated early and plenty accurate as well.

If a winner doesn't matter (casual) you can just call it a day or even walk away if the other guy doesn't agree; it's not like a fight actually happened even if he wants to say he "won" because you walked.

Now if there is a clock and someone thinks they will want to make a move you can just wait it out otherwise I say you just speed up the clock and advance to a point in time when someone will go for the breakout. If all the playing is going to happen in the last 15 minutes then just play the last 15 minutes.

I see that a number of opinions are saying it would be alright for players to play out a game like this til the time/round limit and take a draw. Just to throw a spanner in the works, say this scenario happened at a tournament and both players were say ranked 7th and 8th before the final round then cut to Top 8. The winner of this game will likely go through but the loser probably won't and a draw may give both players enough points to go through. Surely playing out a draw by refusing to engage could be collusion to ensure both players make the cut. This is an unlikely scenario to occur but accepting 1 tournament point for a draw and not engaging to risk that point could be collusion.

Not in the least. If they are that close to making it then neither wants to make a mistake so why should either be REQUIRED to make a play that may cost them the game and very likely keep them out of any elimination rounds.

In scoring a Draw is so close to a Loss that if two players draw the final round before the cut and both will make it in I strongly believe that one would be a top seed and the other should have a good chance at making it in the cut anyway depending on the size. If two people meet in the last round and both can make the cut with a Draw I fully support allowing them to take it. It wouldn't be any different than both players setting up all of their ships and then flying off the board the first round.

It wouldn't be any different than both players setting up all of their ships and then flying off the board the first round.

Both setting up their ships that way and fly off the board first round would be clearly cheating. I really hope that most if not all TOs would simply remove both players from the competition. Just like every other player who makes agreements for pre-determined game results.

I still would applaud two strangers for actually trusting each other enough to do it, but it is still highly against any form of sportsmanship to manipulate tournament results.

Besides that, outside of tournaments, just reset the game, agree on a draw or on reducing time left. Just adapt the game rules as you see fit

If he's playing three contracted scouts and you have that setup, bait him out with OL, kill him with the other two, repeat. Or if he doesn't take the bait, chip him to death with OL, or just go for straight up PS killing (or at least crippling) one of his ships, which you potentially might manage with Vess, OL and Redline all shooting first.

Gotta play, to win, can't win if you won't risk losing, take your advantages where you can get them.

Equally, if he had 3 scouts, how on earth were all 3 of them donutting around out of your range forever? They still have to move a bit and they still have big bases, you should have got in range of each other a bit at some point, surely?

Played a game a few nights ago and a situation of sorts occurred.

I was flying Vessery, Omega Leader and Redline and my opponent was flying 3 Contracted Scouts with torpedoes and some other stuff. Rocks were placed in a pretty close formation on one half of the board. My opponent set up in his right corner and I set up in the opposite one with the rocks between us, closer to my starting position. 5-6 rounds in it was becomming very clear that netiher of us would engage on the other players terms. I was hanging out in the asteroid field and hoping to draw him in whilst my opponent was doing short turns and barrel rolling back to his starting position in the open portion of the map. We both clearly recognised the fact that my ships were stronger in the asteroids and his better off in the clear.

At around that point my opponent called me out and told me I was boring. According to his reasoning I should have been the one to engage on his term because I had higher pilot skill and more manoeuvrable ships. Eventually we sort of moved slowly towards each other and engaged at the edge of the rock-field. He had a fun list and was playing it well but at this time we had played for about 90 mins and I really needed to get some sleep. The game was far from over when I had to leave and it ended up being a massive waste of both our times...

Now, I guess I have two questions.

1) How to avoid this situation without playing like and idiot?

2) Would you say someone of us had more of and obligation than the other to engage? If so, why?

I say never fly on your opponents terms, if he doesn't want to engage, that's up to him.I am guessing you didn't want to be the first one to fly in for a reason.

Neither side has an obligation, but I also think the game will end if you only wait for the perfect time. I dont know your relationship with your opponent, but I think I would have given it back to him about his flying abilities too.

"With two evenly matched competitors, the advantage lies with the man who counters because when a man leads, he cannot help but expose more than the one who remains on-guard. Any commitment automatically opens an invitation or target area." - Bruce Lee

In chess terms, whoever has the advantage MUST attack, but if you attack where there is no advantage, the counterattack is likely to be decisive! In the 2015 Finals the challenger split his forces. Heaver didn't and attacked with a small advantage...

I have been on both sides of this discussion and have seen the truth of these principles demonstrated forcefully!

The current discussion is a good argument for keeping the tournament scoring for draws where it is. It is important that a draw remain an unattractive result for most players in most games.

The current discussion is a good argument for keeping the tournament scoring for draws where it is. It is important that a draw remain an unattractive result for most players in most games.

I'd disagree in as far two evenly matched players shouldn't be punished so badly because of it. If both sides destroy the same 60+ points then that furball should award them more than a "you didn't quite lose" award.

But what are the odds that players lose 60+ points of exactly the same amount? It happens but that edge case is worth enduring to make collusion on 0-0 draws less attractive.

It doesn't need to be 60 points but even if each side lose 20 some points they may have put in an effort. I really believe that a "draw" range could be expanded so the scores don't need to be exactly the same to score as such; where to draw the line is debatable but trying to sit on a small lead really shouldn't be a win that leaves the other side with nothing.

What *** **** is with people and their refusal to believe that draws should be a perfectly acceptable outcome for a match. Just face it, sometimes two people are equal yet it seems that the world these days thinks a slight advantage at one moment it time makes one side a WINNER and the other side a LOSER despite them being evenly matched. The way X-Wing is already scored a hard fought Draw is hardly better than a loss.

I agree that a modified loss should score some points but we are getting off on a very well-worn side-trail now.

First, neither player did anything wrong from a rules standpoint. It is legal to not engage for 75 mins and take the draw. That is up to ya'll. Obviously in a casual game that may mean that you fly around until someone calls it. That's really on both of you.

BUT...

I find it hard to believe that neither player could find an opening. There wasn't a time where you could have pounced on him when he turned away? Or when he was Stressed? you couldn't have baited him with a ship, then boosted/barrel rolled past while flanking?

I have found if my opponent starts doing something like that he/she becomes extremely predictable in what move is next in the pattern and that if I time it correctly, I can catch him/her in his loop and force a situation where all my ships can approach/shoot and few, if any, of his can fire back. This usually leads to a decisive victory and discourages my opponent from doing that again.

I find it much more likely that both players were hesitant to make any moves out of fear of the possible consequences. If that is the case then I am not sure what to say, especially in a casual game. What is the worst that can happen? Losing a casual game is not the end of the world....

Just call it a draw and move on, or if it's friendly match, just fly towards him and sacrifice yourself.

To be honest if that happens not in a tournament game, probably would not play him again I play this game to have fun, not to waste time

Gaming morality is stupid.

-Play by the rules

-Play to win

-Bring the squad you want

-Be friendly to one another

That's it.

That's the list.

Everything else is just noise.

Gaming morality is stupid.

-Play by the rules

-Play to win

-Bring the squad you want

-Be friendly to one another

That's it.

That's the list.

Everything else is just noise.

"Many of the truths that people cling to in life are based solely on their own point of view." - Ben Kenobi

In a local store tournament I have conceded against a castle list as soon as I saw his deployment, because I'd rather play a social game where he actually moves around the table than get a draw on a technicality by doing K-loops in my deployment zone and spend the next 75 minutes staring into space. Having fun by playing the game the way it was intended to be played was more important to me than winning or losing the tournament. Not receiving a specific alt-art card isn't the end of the world, when you get right down to it - I'd rather have a good time in all my games than have a crap game just to try to make it to the top tables.