as an imperial player id rather turtle in a corner and drop to speed 0 and let them come to me than try to kite.

I fly sharp edged rocks.

I was going to wait until after my regionals to ask this question, but I might as well here because it's relevant:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

Or is it simply "forcing tempo", in the words of the great IceQube?

15 minutes ago, Maturin said:

I was going to wait until after my regionals to ask this question, but I might as well here because it's relevant:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

Or is it simply "forcing tempo", in the words of the great IceQube?

I dont consider anything that falls within the rules of the game unsportsmanlike. Will this be a boring as hell game, yes, but you still need to pull it off. The problem is if you dont win initiative you will probably find this type of build lacking and fast hard hitting builds that include Demo, Engine Tech Arquitens and MC-30s will probably ruin your day.

46 minutes ago, Maturin said:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

I think its a valid build and valid tactic. You're trading firepower for speed and using missions to your advantage. However, keep in mind that running away may be not as easy as you think.

39 minutes ago, Maturin said:

I was going to wait until after my regionals to ask this question, but I might as well here because it's relevant:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

Or is it simply "forcing tempo", in the words of the great IceQube?

Love the idea. A friend is working on a similar idea involving a completely pimped out MC80, 8 or 9 GR-75's, and 3 VCXs.

1 hour ago, Maturin said:

I was going to wait until after my regionals to ask this question, but I might as well here because it's relevant:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

Or is it simply "forcing tempo", in the words of the great IceQube?

while not in the spirit of playing games it is accurate depections. how many times were the rebels trying to steal plans to some thing and the empire showed up to stop them. so the rebels ran instead of losing valuble assests. its playing for scenario (objectives) it adds another level to the game for sure.

This is where i was headed with my tanky imperials and i may revisit it. especially with sensor net and having h9s means its just free points all the time. strategic really opened up this stlye of play but im not convinced its actively good for the game

2 hours ago, Maturin said:

I was going to wait until after my regionals to ask this question, but I might as well here because it's relevant:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

Or is it simply "forcing tempo", in the words of the great IceQube?

I guess I'll be the one to take a stand against this. I have always and will always hate this type of win at all costs attitude. I came to play a game of Star Wars spaceships, not a game of race cars. Retreating when you have a bad match up is one thing (I still think you go big or go home, but I understand the choice), but intentionally making a fleet to run away is ridiculous.

Well, as others have said, it's very hard to run away forever. It's more like...delaying the engagement until turn 4 or so.

Does that make it any more palatable, @Truthiness? (Honest question)

23 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

I guess I'll be the one to take a stand against this. I have always and will always hate this type of win at all costs attitude. I came to play a game of Star Wars spaceships, not a game of race cars. Retreating when you have a bad match up is one thing (I still think you go big or go home, but I understand the choice), but intentionally making a fleet to run away is ridiculous.

I think it's an interesting concept. Remember, Armada isn't (necessarily) a deathmatch, it's about the objectives. If you can build a fleet that can approach objective play in an unconventional way by avoiding engagement, I'm all for it.

Now, whether I think it will work is a different matter. It's going to be super difficult to bring all the moving pieces to make this work and also avoid engagement with the whole fleet.

3 hours ago, Maturin said:

I was going to wait until after my regionals to ask this question, but I might as well here because it's relevant:

So how many of you would view as "unsporting" a fleet designed to run away, while simultaneously racking up lots of VP's (and denying you the same)? This is now entirely possible with objectives like Fire Lanes and Sensor Net.

Or is it simply "forcing tempo", in the words of the great IceQube?

I have personal knowledge of this type of list because I've played against one.

Strategic is an issue that is going to have be addressed in competitive play.

The first and most obvious way to deal with a fleet that is built to run and ferry objectives using strategic is simple.

Deprive that fleet of second player.

These fleets are so obnoxious that I would be willing to give up first player with a triple tap demo so I don't have to deal with it.

29 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

I guess I'll be the one to take a stand against this. I have always and will always hate this type of win at all costs attitude. I came to play a game of Star Wars spaceships, not a game of race cars. Retreating when you have a bad match up is one thing (I still think you go big or go home, but I understand the choice), but intentionally making a fleet to run away is ridiculous.

I agree with you on this and I also agree with your views on what to do with a bad matchup (as I stated earlier). While some things are allowed within the rules, the view that "anything allowed is sportsmanlike" goes against the very understanding of sportsmanship.

1 hour ago, ryanabt said:

I agree with you on this and I also agree with your views on what to do with a bad matchup (as I stated earlier). While some things are allowed within the rules, the view that "anything allowed is sportsmanlike" goes against the very understanding of sportsmanship.

Your statement makes the assumption that rules as written or "anything allowed" within the rules can be unsportsmanlike. I completely disagree. As for the definition of sportsmanship - conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport. Nothing in Maturin's statement suggested he would play without fairness or respect for one's opponent. He is playing to win and as long as he is gracious and follows the rules I would hope we can agree that falls within the definition of sportsmanship. In this case there are several of you who have a dislike for this type of play-style and that is your right but it doesnt make the strategy any less viable or unsportsmanlike.

34 minutes ago, Overdawg said:

Your statement makes the assumption that rules as written or "anything allowed" within the rules can be unsportsmanlike. I completely disagree. As for the definition of sportsmanship - conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport. Nothing in Maturin's statement suggested he would play without fairness or respect for one's opponent. He is playing to win and as long as he is gracious and follows the rules I would hope we can agree that falls within the definition of sportsmanship. In this case there are several of you who have a dislike for this type of play-style and that is your right but it doesnt make the strategy any less viable or unsportsmanlike.

This assumes an inactive view of sportsmanship. If I DON'T do this, then I am acting sportsmanlike. I have an active view of sportsmanship. I MUST do this to be a sportsman. One assumes the state exists before acting and the other only after. Your view assumes that one may do whatever one likes as long as it is within certain parameters (tournament rules) no matter the resultant consequences (or assumes that the parameters themselves should be a priori accepted as having only positive because to play within them equates to a contract of sorts). I, however, believe that the parameters express only rules. The ideal of sportsmanship is to play within the rules AND go beyond in the personal attitudes, relationships, and interactions. Yes, graciousness is a part of that, but consideration of your opponents enjoyment is, I believe, also a part.

1 hour ago, ryanabt said:

This assumes an inactive view of sportsmanship. If I DON'T do this, then I am acting sportsmanlike. I have an active view of sportsmanship. I MUST do this to be a sportsman. One assumes the state exists before acting and the other only after. Your view assumes that one may do whatever one likes as long as it is within certain parameters (tournament rules) no matter the resultant consequences (or assumes that the parameters themselves should be a priori accepted as having only positive because to play within them equates to a contract of sorts). I, however, believe that the parameters express only rules. The ideal of sportsmanship is to play within the rules AND go beyond in the personal attitudes, relationships, and interactions. Yes, graciousness is a part of that, but consideration of your opponents enjoyment is, I believe, also a part.

It's not your opponent's responsibility to make sure you have a good time. That's on you.

If you didn't have a good time because your opponent played the game in innovative and unexpected ways, maybe you need to reconsider playing in high-level competition.

If you're worried about an avoidance list disengaging in your games, maybe you need to reconsider your own approach. I can guarantee you a list like this wouldn't be able to run from my fleet...

9 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

It's not your opponent's responsibility to make sure you have a good time. That's on you.

If you didn't have a good time because your opponent played the game in innovative and unexpected ways, maybe you need to reconsider playing in high-level competition.

If you're worried about an avoidance list disengaging in your games, maybe you need to reconsider your own approach. I can guarantee you a list like this wouldn't be able to run from my fleet...

We disagree. It isn't a problem. I can count on one finger the times that someone has list built or whatnot within the rules that I have felt unsportsmanlike. No big deal. I simply answered the question on behalf of those who are not of the competitive play equals win at all costs mentality even at tourneys. The fun aspect still has some pull for me at tourneys. That is all.

On 18/02/2017 at 1:52 AM, Ardaedhel said:

I think it's an interesting concept. Remember, Armada isn't (necessarily) a deathmatch, it's about the objectives. If you can build a fleet that can approach objective play in an unconventional way by avoiding engagement, I'm all for it.

Now, whether I think it will work is a different matter. It's going to be super difficult to bring all the moving pieces to make this work and also avoid engagement with the whole fleet.

This^. Absolutely 100 %.

I understand that it might be frustrating if you've built a list to destroy your opponent's fleet when you get into combat range, only to find that they're harvesting points by abusing Strategic to collect all the Sensor Net tokens. However, that is legitimately the game. Not everyone has to bring a bigger hammer, or a sharper knife. If they can use cunning to wring points out of an objective for the win then well done on them and you need to adapt your list or play style to deal with it.

Look at their list, anticipate what they're planning to do, make educated choices about initiative and deployment and shut them down. If they're playing hard with token based objectives then they're giving up combat potential to do so. Punish them for it.

This kind of victory is not an auto win, the same as you can't netlist a championship fleet and expect to roll your opponents.

This variety is good for the game as it makes you have to plan for and adjust to a much greater challenge than just bigger lasers.

(I say this as someone who has yet to perform better than middling at a tournament but love all the options for viable strategies available now; I'm happy to be beaten, as long as someone is playing friendly and fair)

I think good sportsmanship is treading the fine line between following the RAW and understanding people forget things. There was a game in NC where R1H4 (from IFF) forgot to pick up an Intel Sweep token when he activated, and his opponent didn't let him grab it, and I believe his opponent made the same mistake and R1H4 let it slide. He still won the game regardless of the token, but that kind of stuff is very.....messy.

If I understand your intent for a ship, and the majority of the time I do, I'm fine with letting you grab the token or change your CF dial on the GR-75 out in the middle of nowhere to a squad because you have Relay. **** happens. There is a lot of things to manage in Armada and it can be hard to do at the end of the day. I don't want to win because of a technicality, but at the same time I'm not going to tell you how to run your fleet. If you forgot to Toryn Farr and realize it before we finish the attack, go ahead and reroll. But I'm not going to babysit and remind you to reroll every attack.

Good sportsmanship goes beyond just following the rules. You should have empathy for your opponent, but still hold them to the guidelines of the game.

If you want to make a fleet designed to run with a bunch of tokens, go for it. I will chase it down or force an engagement. I don't think someone can create an "unsporting" fleet unless they do something crazy like 1 ET CR90 with MM and a 320 point bid, going for second player and trying to skirt by with 6-5s all day. But at the same time, that player will never win first place.

I think there is this murkiness going on between the veterans of the game and the new people who are joining. CC did wonders for this game and there are so many new people here, but with that comes a gap in understanding and knowledge. A new player who plays against a TRC90 list with 8 YT-2400s may call it "cheesy" or "unsporting" because it abuses the **** out of TRC and Rogues. The list is very hard to deal with, but at the same time, a veteran will know how to deal with this niche list, namely activated squads/Rieekan. It would seem the same problem is occuring with lists that abuse Strategic and like to run away yet still score tons of points. A new player will not know the dilemma of how much to bid with their fleet, or immediately understand what their opponents fleet is capable of or what objectives they will have, and thus, they may say the list is unsporting because in their experience, Armada is about fleets coming at each other and rolling dice and things blowing up. Those players are not wrong with their complaint, but they simply do not grasp the boundless options that Armada has to offer. It's like telling a kid they can multiply instead of using addition. They have no experience using multiplication until they first encounter it. Or better yet, new grads trying to get a job with no experience, but every job needs 5 years of experience.

So no, it is perfectly legal to create a fleet that has 4 Strategic squads and tries to run away. But in a competitive setting, you will run into someone with a bigger bid, who understand what you are trying to do, and will not let your niche fleet survive for very long when it catches up. This is one of the wonders of the tournament system. You need to build a list and understand the intricacies of the game in order to win. New players will not have the experience to do that.

On 2/17/2017 at 10:18 PM, ryanabt said:

... consideration of your opponents enjoyment is, I believe, also a part.

Im pretty sure people don't enjoy it when they get tabled 10-1, which is the sort of playstyle . Not in the least. I mean I don't enjoy it, but I do try to learn from it.

But it would be unsportsmanlike to go easy on them (in the sense of destroying them, not giving them elbow room for mistakes). It's the same thing I do in martial arts. If my opponents take it easy on me, I'll never discover my weaknesses.

And so, by flying a fleet designed to rack up objective points, you have shown them a different way to play the game, and exposed a potential weakness in their own strategy. That is sporting.

13 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I think good sportsmanship is treading the fine line between following the RAW and understanding people forget things. There was a game in NC where R1H4 (from IFF) forgot to pick up an Intel Sweep token when he activated, and his opponent didn't let him grab it, and I believe his opponent made the same mistake and R1H4 let it slide. He still won the game regardless of the token, but that kind of stuff is very.....messy.

I was standing right next to this match and to be clear in this circumstance R1H4 had fully activated the ship and went through all the phases and had placed his maneuver dial down to move his ship when he suddenly remembered that he didnt pick up the token. I think in this case the other player was well justified to deny him that token. I realize some of you feel different but he was 90% done with his activation when he remembered and I think that is stretching the line in terms of allowing people to retcon mistakes. R1H4s load and angry response to the denial of the token and his general demeanor after that is what I would call unsportsmanlike.

I let people slide all the time on stuff and many times people dont let me slide and I simply nod my head and agree that they are correct and move on and dont make a scene.