So I've been a player since April 2015, and I've grown absolutely attached to this game. Win or lose, rebel or imperial, I enjoy playing.

With that said, since I started playing, I've noticed that there are players that feel that specific tactics, though legal, are outside the spirit of game play.

One such instance occurred over the course of a CC campaign I was playing with 3 friends.

My fleet was designed fighter heavy using relay, rhymer, and bombers to gain early game advantages over heavy ships that lacked the upgrades to defend themselves. My fleet had a Glad I, 2 Arquitens, 2 gozantis, 3 Tie advanced, Tempest squad, 3 tie bombers, Rhymer, Jendon, and black squadron. My teamate was running two imperial IIs, with plans to build a pulsetap avenger fleet.

During my first match my opponent was using an Mc80 and two Mc 30s. By Round 4 his Mc80 tried to hyperspace out as my bombers blew it up. His other fighters managed to retreat and I won the match. Simultaneously, my partner lost an ISD II, the match, and a base.

He had enough resources to repair his ship, but not enough to fit them with upgrades. House rules for the CC event we ran let players reallocate resources between other players, so I dumped all my resources into my teammates fleet to outfit it completely. Leaving mine repaired, but sparse.

Here's the Rules Vs. Ethics part:

For the next round, after losing a major resource base, we needed a win, so, since we had initiative, we coordinated to use his fleet with a fully decked PT avenger combo as a defender and I would assault a rebel location as a farce to distract the stronger enemy player. The plan was to keep our base defended maybe win a new planet, and buy time to upgrade the rest of our fleets.

The match started for us both and I took an evasive deployment while my teammate planted to defend our base. As I approached the middle of round 2 I overheard that my teammate lost an ISD, which meant to me, this farce was now an important land grab. (especially since my teammate was defending Corellia) According the the Rules, the Imperials will win by default in the event of a tie. I had just began to assault with my fighters, and they had not been engaged, so I immediately switched strategies to disengage and deny any assets to the opponent. By the End of round 3 it became clear it was unlikely he would be able to engage any fighters or ships long enough to sink them. My opponent was visibly upset. While I know the Rules state that's a legal maneuver, is it ethically wrong to waste a fellow player's time even if it's likely the only path to victory? He stated, "If he'd have known I was going to be a pu***, he'd of saved a trip and stayed at home". I felt crummy about it, so I chose to engage his fighters and managed to pull away with a narrow win.


I'm just curious where players stand on ethics during play.

Has anyone had a similar problem?

I have not had the problem, but I can definitely see the use of a non-engagement battle for the campaign.

I can see how it might be annoying for your opponent that you won't engage, but to appear 'visibly' upset, and to resort to that kind of language (depending on tone and community style, I'm sure), then I think the greater ethical breach is on his part. Of course, he might have been taunting you in order to get you to engage.

By the rules, do you mean that in the event of a tie, the second player wins? Or am I missing something (likely)?

The only issue might be using the meta game knowledge of your partner potentially losing to play differently. Otherwise this is a campaign. Playing the long game is important. Your opponent should gave played more aggressively if he had wanted to really get after you.

This appears to be a similar vein to the Huperspace [sic] Escape thread, wherein players have a disagreement about the value of a game, and the balance of playing the strategy aspect of the campaign (withdrawing) versus holding the stand-up fight of a game that a game of Armada normally is. For myself, I would say that the other guy's view that you cheapened his evening would have been valid, had he not agreed to the rules of the campaign and everything that goes along with that. You are under no obligation to deliver to him anything that he desires, simply because he desires it. I am sympathetic to his frustration at being "cheated" of an honest game, but he agreed to play the campaign, so my sympathy promptly ends there. That may be harsh, but so was his language, and that was absolutely uncalled for (assuming that is as offensive to you as it is to me). I would have lobbied to relieve that player of command of his fleet in the campaign. Yeah, it sucks he got something other than what he wanted. He also chose to invest whatever time and other resources required into the game and the campaign, possessing the information that he has available to him about how all this works.

21 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I find it hard to marry two points here...

Namely:

" I was playing with 3 friends."

And

" " If he'd have known I was going to be a pu***, he'd of saved a trip and stayed at home" "


...

Anyone who is going to say that isn't acting like a friend - a trusted inclusion in a gaming group on which everyone has accepted to play a campaign.

I don't think you should let your teammates game influence yours. I do think that is a bit unfair because you should be invested in your own game and how that contributes to the campaign as a whole, not trying to game the system with knowledge you really shouldn't know about.

Also, it sounds like the guy you played against is someone you don't want to invest very much time to play with again. I'm sure lack of players forced you to play with him, and is a sore loser because he didn't get to play the game he wanted to play.

"Evasion" bothers me so, so much less than other things people could have done "wrong" that I have a hard time even answering. You played smart. That play wasn't in your opponents' best interest. Makes sense to me.

Sore loser!

Plain and simple. He should get a backbone and stop being such a crybaby. War is never fair.

There was nothing unethical in what you did. Armada is a game of tactics and strategy. The Corellian Conflict more so as it's about a sector wide strategy. Not just the outcome of one game.

At Fargo Regionals I was paired against my cousin running Rieekan Aceholes. I don't think I can beat his list, so I deployed in the opposite corner. I didn't run from him, I didn't Evade the whole game, but I was trying to limit the damage how slower moving squadrons could do to me.

I felt bad about it, because it's not a gripping kind of game to play - but in the competitive scene, I'm here to win. He can come over and play me any time, and I won't play such an unsatisfactory game - I'll likely lose, but that's OK. In a competitive sense, I'll play to win (or lose as little as possible.)

In CC, if your goal changes, your playstyle should too. In a perfect world you wouldn't have had the information you did, but it's not a perfect world.

In my view, if the rules allow it, then it's perfectly ethical.

You aren't required ethically to play the game tactically or strategically the way he wants. The issue is with him, not you.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I find it hard to marry two points here...

Namely:

" I was playing with 3 friends."

And

" " If he'd have known I was going to be a pu***, he'd of saved a trip and stayed at home" "


...

Anyone who is going to say that isn't acting like a friend - a trusted inclusion in a gaming group on which everyone has accepted to play a campaign.

Well, that statement was made with sarcastic intentions but I could hear in his tone it was rooted in truth. The frustration is understandable. Our group has no problem with swearing, we're all adults, but it did seems a bit out of spirit.

10 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

This appears to be a similar vein to the Huperspace [sic] Escape thread, wherein players have a disagreement about the value of a game, and the balance of playing the strategy aspect of the campaign (withdrawing) versus holding the stand-up fight of a game that a game of Armada normally is. For myself, I would say that the other guy's view that you cheapened his evening would have been valid, had he not agreed to the rules of the campaign and everything that goes along with that. You are under no obligation to deliver to him anything that he desires, simply because he desires it. I am sympathetic to his frustration at being "cheated" of an honest game, but he agreed to play the campaign, so my sympathy promptly ends there. That may be harsh, but so was his language, and that was absolutely uncalled for (assuming that is as offensive to you as it is to me). I would have lobbied to relieve that player of command of his fleet in the campaign. Yeah, it sucks he got something other than what he wanted. He also chose to invest whatever time and other resources required into the game and the campaign, possessing the information that he has available to him about how all this works.

Nah, I knew it was a cowardice strategy, but it was really my only option.

I've been playing defensively making my opponent attack me first. It's a calculated strategy that forces my opponent to make the first mistake and I have been winning my Campaign games because of it.

Sounds like "out of game" issues are occuring more than in game tactics. That is a whole new Ethics discussion.

I don't think you did anything wrong. You're playing to win the campaign, not each individual match. I don't worry too much about people "gaming" the system. It is literally a gaming system with (mostly) clear rules that were designed to be utilized by players (cleverly or not). I have confidence that significant , repeatedly unbalanced rules oversights will be corrected by FFG in time and have not had a single instance where I felt I had to house rule something or come to a gentlemen's agreement to feel like I was getting a fair match.

What you did was well within the rules and a perfectly valid tactic. If he doesn't like it then oh well. If doing it makes you a pu*** then what does it make him when he lost to a pu***. He can either get butt-hurt or get good.

It's his job to catch you and out play you.

One of the other ethical issues I ran into was during the wave 1 expansion. At the time, imperial players had the VSD and the Glad. One of my strategies was to use my glads as a ramming tool. At close range, blocking the opponent's path, I was often able to sink opponents easily. Mind you, this was VERY early gameplay for my friend and I, so we still weren't using objectives and we had just started using fighters, really, still learning the basics.

At the time, he took issue with ramming. Since then, some 20-30 matches later for him, he's well past accepted it.

Is there such thing as a "d*** move" in Armada?

If I had an opponent who regularly evaded me (via disengagement or Hyperspace) I'd rig my fleet to go after him. All you need to do is nip one squadron to force him to lose or fight (hyperspace costs points). There is so much good fiction in this regard. The elusive commander is hunted by a vengeful and frustrated nemesis. That's why I'm playing the campaign.

It may be less pew pew, but more story and flexible, alternative goals in battles beyond just winning via points.

If you are being overly evasive, all the opponent needs to do is learn to nip you (1 squadron) to consistently pull ahead in resources and points. The evasive tactic comes at a cost that will eventually make it hard to stay elusive (assuming the chaser is wise enough to build a harrier fleet to hunt fast prey).

1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

One of the other ethical issues I ran into was during the wave 1 expansion. At the time, imperial players had the VSD and the Glad. One of my strategies was to use my glads as a ramming tool. At close range, blocking the opponent's path, I was often able to sink opponents easily. Mind you, this was VERY early gameplay for my friend and I, so we still weren't using objectives and we had just started using fighters, really, still learning the basics.

At the time, he took issue with ramming. Since then, some 20-30 matches later for him, he's well past accepted it.

Is there such thing as a "d*** move" in Armada?

as a strategy warfare game, I don't really think there is much "ethic" that could be applied, sure it's your friend and you may not want to use something that is 100% sure to win, but the great fun about those games is how creatively you use what's in disposal to the most profitable outcome

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

One of the other ethical issues I ran into was during the wave 1 expansion. At the time, imperial players had the VSD and the Glad. One of my strategies was to use my glads as a ramming tool. At close range, blocking the opponent's path, I was often able to sink opponents easily. Mind you, this was VERY early gameplay for my friend and I, so we still weren't using objectives and we had just started using fighters, really, still learning the basics.

At the time, he took issue with ramming. Since then, some 20-30 matches later for him, he's well past accepted it.

Is there such thing as a "d*** move" in Armada?

yes, the **** move is complaining to your opponent when they use perfectly legal moves.

19 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Nah, I knew it was an intelligent strategy, but it was really my only option.

Fixed that for you. Seriously though, while it may have been slightly unfair for you to have heard the results of the other game (*adds to my list of house rules to bring up), you were absolutely within your rights to play that way. He knew what he was signing up for. I may be harsh since for other personal reasons my tolerance for this sort of thing has done its best impression of a brick in thin air, but you did absolutely nothing wrong, and he needs to have that made clear to him in no uncertain terms.

I was at a regionals last year and I was playing an opponent who had a rock to my scissors. I knew that if I lost bad I would have been out of the top 8 so I tried to get a few points from squadrons and went for the 6-4 (scoring at the time) and ran away with my other ships to deny him the points. He was beyond pissed and flat out told me it was the worst game (not just Armada) that he had ever played and if he could get me thrown out of the tournament for poor sportsmanship he would have. I just smiled and said "I am sorry you had such a bad game but I am here to win within the rules, not play stupid and lose." That obviously didnt help any. Anyway, I did talk to him to later and he was a good sport about it after he cooled down and realized what I was doing and although he didnt like it he did understand. I ended up getting 4th and got the bye and the invite to nationals and did well there too as a result so I feel like I did the right thing.

People will argue back and forth about "flying casual" and I will do that in casual games but I will not do that in big events. Moral of the story for me here is I dont see anything wrong with what you did and your "friend" was just being a bad sport about it.

Given how prominent objectives are in this game, and how well some of them force engagement, it all sounds like everything had to fall into place for you pretty well for this to work anyways.

I imagine it's one of those "man, that sucked to play against, but makes for a great story later" kind of things.

I just wanna input that I'm extremely thankful to have the player base we have here in Raleigh. Some of the people you guys tell stories of playing against sound awful.

I'm conflicted on this, honestly. It sucks for the two people playing out that game, but it reminds me of a couple of times in the novels where they would stage a feint at one location in order to distract from the actual objective. It sounds great in the overarching story of the campaign.

43 minutes ago, Overdawg said:

I was at a regionals last year and I was playing an opponent who had a rock to my scissors. I knew that if I lost bad I would have been out of the top 8 so I tried to get a few points from squadrons and went for the 6-4 (scoring at the time) and ran away with my other ships to deny him the points. He was beyond pissed and flat out told me it was the worst game (not just Armada) that he had ever played and if he could get me thrown out of the tournament for poor sportsmanship he would have. I just smiled and said "I am sorry you had such a bad game but I am here to win within the rules, not play stupid and lose." That obviously didnt help any. Anyway, I did talk to him to later and he was a good sport about it after he cooled down and realized what I was doing and although he didnt like it he did understand. I ended up getting 4th and got the bye and the invite to nationals and did well there too as a result so I feel like I did the right thing.

People will argue back and forth about "flying casual" and I will do that in casual games but I will not do that in big events. Moral of the story for me here is I dont see anything wrong with what you did and your "friend" was just being a bad sport about it.

Seems like a very similar situation to me. I agree with your assessment of it, sometimes you gotta use alternative tactics to stay above water.