Thanks for the feedback so far! I'm not married to the idea of bombs so am happy to leave them at home if that's the consensus.

Not cheap, but it can be frustrating! From a fluff perspective it makes perfect sense, too - an enemy not literally connecting, but so in your face you don't have time to do anything else but avoid a collision.

Up until now, I’ve been more an Imperial Navy junkie, staying away from anything that didn’t have a TIE in its name. Call it a fluff preference. Whatever. Yet just recently I’ve been toying around with pure Firespray lists, imagining them to be a mercenary outfit willing to sell their services to the highest bidder and just as happy killing imps as rebels. I like the load out options, tankiness and the flexibility (and challenge) of using the rear firing arc that the ship offers. (I wish we had more pilot choices for the Firespray, if not ships – ‘Mercenary Aces’ anyone? – but that’s something for another day). So, my tendencies at the moment are towards either a higher PS duo or the vanilla trio of 3xBH. For the duo, I’ve been considering Fett and Scarlet, each with PTL, Recon, Assault Missiles (or replacing A/M with engine upgrade on both for more flexibility + a seismic charge on Fett). To me the combination of PTL and Recon seem to work really well for the ship (with the good greens on the dial helping with shredding stress): - TL and double focus for attacking (and getting those missiles off in one turn with focus if needed) - Evade and double focus for defending (or defending/attacking) So three questions for all the Firespray experts out there: 1. What are the current thoughts re which build is the most competitive for the tournament scene – a trio or a duo (if the latter, what build to you recommend)? 2. What starting positions and movement advice do you suggest to help counter our blind spots? 3. How to best use bombs in conjunction with the ship's dial and rear arc (I have very little experience with them and feel I miss too often with them). Any input greatly appreciated.

Yes, would definitely consider the Defender for the role when it's out.

Yep, sure - hadn't considered that - will update the OP.

Hi there, Been trying to create a list in which 2 squints (perhaps 2 RGPs with PTL or a Fel/Jax combo) act as 'DPS' with a third unit that acts as a 'tank'. I'm more than fine with handling squints, but have less experience with the potential beefier builds that could make the tank element (i.e being a ship that can't be ignored by the enemy, soaks up damage and allows the squints to do what comes best). A couple of choices I guess: - A shuttle; - A Firespray; - A Defender (upon release); - TIE Advanced(s); - TIE bomber(s) or perhaps - A mini swarm of TIEs Current idea is to use an OGP with Vader, anti pursuit lasers, saboteur to basically get in the way of the enemy and cause grief, but as I'm sure you all know the shuttle doesn't fly so well! So how would you build/fly an imperial tank?

yeah i should try a top down view maybe... make it 2 dimensional could work... Sorry to hear this news! Would *definitely* recommend the earlier comment about using the Vassal version of X-Wing (that goes for everyone, actually...). It's purely a top down view, is really easy to use and there's quite a community (at all times of day from what I've seen). Apart from that, all I can suggest is that you keep at it and adjust when playing for real. Good luck!

Lol! I note that this podcast *also* discusses a certain type of strategy I'm fond of that might become more popular given the tournament rule changes....one that has also been the subject of a certain infamous thread round these parts! And no, I'm not the one that posed the question in the podcast, though I note they didn't look upon it negatively. And that's all I have to say on the matter! :-)

do you want to come back to my place — bouncy-bouncy? Clearly, you're not the Messiah.

These are not the words you're looking for (!)

40 and play with a crowd that ranges from 20s to older than me. More importantly, I've started playing very basic games with my 5 year old daughter (no actions or dials, just using the templates and rolling dice). She loves it! Being a bit of an old man, turned off by the prequels, I was surprised to learn from her that there's a whole new generation of Star Wars fans on the rise - people who have never heard of someone called Darth Vader. One day she begged me to sit down and watch this awesome cartoon she'd discovered on TV. Turns out it was the Clone Wars series (surprisingly good, too, I thought).

Just one? Man, that's hard: - Get ready to have some fun; - But two starter sets; - Practice flying something in formation (a group of TIEs is great for this), seeing how things change as turns/banks occur; - Practice estimating in your mind the length of the templates and the adjustments that barrel rolling or boosting can lead to; - Learn the dials of ships you could be up against (or at least get something you can refer to); - Understand that low PS pilots have strengths other than just their cheapness (they're great blockers, for example); - More than any other game I have played, get into the mindset of trying to predict what your opponent is going to do and how to react to that in advance, whilst simultaneously realising a good opponent will be doing exactly the same. - If you're a bit of an old cynic like I am, make sure you let the game rekindle the awesomeness that is Star Wars. Finally, if you don't have a really active scene near you, or can't participate as much as you might otherwise want, look into 'Vassal' - an awesome PC board game emulator for which X-Wing not only works extremely well, but has a very active player base. Welcome aboard and have fun - it's great.

Oh no. No, you don't get to walk away from this thread positioning yourself as if you have the moral high ground here. You have happily thrown around immature and unapologetic accusations of cheating without any basis in fact or logic, whilst clinging to a simpleton's argument that goes not only against the sanctioned tournament rules of the game, the fluff of the universe, the very words of the game developer themselves but the vast majority of people participating in this forum. When confronted with all this, rather than admit your error, you make things worse by desperately clinging to even more ridiculous arguments involving such beauties as loaded dice. You have proven yourself to be a narrow minded little cretin at best, unwilling to accept that there might be a variety of entirely legitimate ways to play the game (whilst have fun doing so). You are easily the worst thing to have happened to this game in the time I have been involved in it. And yes - for the record - with regards to this topic, you've now been kicked to the curb on this in two threads out of two. Third time lucky? Now you can leave.

But it's not really a game of cat and mouse. A game of cat and mouse would be aiming to set up shots while staying away from effective return fire, eventually either killing all of the opposing ships without ever getting hit in return, or getting caught and mercilessly slaughtered. The stalling strategy in question isn't anything like that, it has no hope of ever winning the game without slow play and the time limit. Please stop quoting from whatever obsolete (or entirely imaginary) version of the rules you're using. The current tournament rules do not contain that statement. Well gosh iP, ya got me there. They actually removed that wording from the last version of the rules. Hmm, why could that be, I wonder? Common sense? Limited imagination on the part of the organizers in that they could not foresee the unbelievable reasoning that only a intellectual pygmy such as yourself could come up with? But sir, well played - you deserve a golf clap at the very least for that almost Herculean effort of straw grasping you've committed yourself to!

Are you illiterate, or just trolling? The rule says you must use components that come with X-Wing products. The rules do NOT say that you are not permitted to modify those components once you buy them.Well done, iP (it's really starting to grow on me), you really show-...Wait, what's this? Under 'Component Modification'...? 'All components other than ship models *must* remain unaltered.' Awww poor iP, so close. So very, very close*. *Nah, not really. Not even remotely. Poor troll *sad face*

As I've said before, the cutoff point is whether you would use the same strategy in a game with no time limit. If you would continue to do the same things even if the game would continue as long as necessary until all of one player's ships have been destroyed then it's a legitimate strategy. If your strategy would have no hope of winning and you would have to do something else then you're stalling. Oh hell, I've just had an epiphany. Hey iP (can I call you iP?) - you're giving us a taste of our own medicine, aren't you? See guys, this is what happens when you use evasive tactics in a situation with no time limit! You just go round.. and around...and around in circles without ever landing a convincing blow. Guys, *we're* the Y-wings!!! Oh, iP (I'm just gonna go ahead and call you that, ok?) you truly are a master troll.

You "covered" it by claiming that a rule exists, without quoting it like I asked you to do.We covered it by quoting actual rules text and official statements from FFG, pages ago. You've ignored them time and again, why should I bother repeating it?Ooh! Ooh! I know that one! Is it 'to feed the troll'?To be fair, those quotes contained rather large words. Some even had more than two syllables. Maybe again, this time using crayon?

It is technically legal, just like using loaded dice. And just like using loaded dice you're still a {censored} if you do it.Also, FFG hasn't fully embraced stalling at all. What we have here is some "win at all costs" types seeing what they want to see in a statement that does not in any way approve of stalling. In fact, the X-Wing tournament rules explicitly ban stalling. Nope, we covered that. Next. Multiple times, eloquently, clearly, logically and convincingly. iPeregrine, you've been outclassed at every single step. But keep going, it's kind of interesting just to see how hilarious you can get.

I'm sorry but in tournament games at least, it's an entirely acceptable approach to take! Unlike the la la land that the trolls around here seem to live in, the time limit in games is part of the victory condition criteria that exists (and it's funny that they bemoan that artificial limitation, but not the one that a limited 3x3 playing area presents), total annihilation of ships is not part of the victory criteria and FFG explicitly encourages defensive play - which (again for the millionth time) is not the same as stalling. While I respect your opinion (unlike the trolls), the implied double standards in these types of comments really surprises me for what is supposed to be a strategy game. As someone who primarily enjoys the play style of all interceptor lists, it would be easy for me to state that my definition of fun is the outflanking and backstabbing opportunities that these ships are great at. Therefore, if I took the same approach as those making comments such as these, I should be bemoaning and complaining about people that play all Falcon and/or turret lists, shouldn't I? They take away my prime motivation for enjoying the game, don't they? But no, that's not what I do - instead, I try to better myself at this strategy game. Consider options, improve my play style. Do I focus fire the Falcons/turreted ships or avoid them? I still don't have any easy answers to these questions, but it's all part of the fun. And I'll happily concede that it may not be the most effective strategy to take (at least in it's most purest 'just get the 12 points and flee' form), but it is possible. PTL'd interceptors with stealth devices are amazingly hard to hit once they decide to run. What normally happens is that I'd get to a certain point in the game having done X amount of damage to the enemy (usually suffering a fair amount of damage myself) with Y amount of time left, realise that I'm ahead and decide to go completely defensive. Were I to do anything else, I'd be playing someone else's game for them whilst simultaneously encouraging the growth of a less diversive play style for the game as a whole - and I'll be buggered if I'm going to do that to myself or to X-Wing.

Oh that's priceless. Well played, sir. Well played.

you might wanna reread the the victory conditions in the tournament rules....... or do you want to imply those don't count, if so you might run into problems on your next tournament Don't bother feeding the troll. I've already explained this to him at least twice as just one of his many, many failings.I'm starting to regret the comparison to my son - at least with him I only have to explain simple concepts once.

Lol, that was quick (on my part) but just wanted to add that I 100% agree with this. Like I said earlier, being a jerk all boils down to attitude. This is an awesome game, and I want to encourage as many people to get into it as possible (much like I was encouraged myself). Whoa Whoa Whoa! Start agreeing with me, and this thread might actually get somewhere! lol! No it won't - and stop being a jerk! :-)

Lol, that was quick (on my part) but just wanted to add that I 100% agree with this. Like I said earlier, being a jerk all boils down to attitude. This is an awesome game, and I want to encourage as many people to get into it as possible (much like I was encouraged myself).

A couple of further comments from me, then I think (hope?) I’m done on this topic: @iPeregrine: There’s no further point engaging with you on this - I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re either acting like a troll in the modern sense or are as intelligent as a troll in the traditional sense. I’d be fine with your point of view if you were purely stating that you didn’t like the strategy (though I’d still argue that it’s a completely valid one without any necessary negative connotations), but you go further than that with your poor reasoning and inconsistency, combined with cheap and unproven accusations all topped off with mean and petty demands that must be met without any consideration for anyone else with a different viewpoint whatsoever. You come across as a narrow-minded, inflexible, immature authoritarian that threatens to throw his toys at the first sign of being challenged - much like my two year old son. And much like dealing with him, it’s far too easy to point the flaws in your ‘argument’, not to mention being equal parts tiring and hilarious, dully repetitive and just slightly embarrassing. Off to the naughty room with you, I think - there’s a good boy. @Steak: Yes, I agree that just flying around and around in circles doesn’t accurately represent fluff, but I count that as being due to the limitations of having to play on a 3x3 board. In this scenario, I envisage squints would either break off and try for another shot if possible (which we can certainly do in the game) or flee the scene completely having calculated that the damage done versus the damage suffered in their hit and run tactics has been considered a success (which we can’t in the game and therefore try to emulate by evasion). Re the never ending scenario – why can’t we just declare it a draw? Sure, it may not be as much fun as a win (for one person at least), but don’t write off the potential chance for entertainment, respect for ability and learning that might come out of it. @WonderWAAAGH: Yes, I know it’s never ending, but you know what? There are worse things in life and to me it’s a breath of fresh air to see so many so passionate about a game.

See, this stance drives me to distraction (though just to be clear I have no issue with the author!). To me, it implies a certain moral high ground belongs to a particular group of players that want to play the game one way and not to another because they refuse to engage that player on their terms (to their own detriment). In 40k, this would be like the much more popular Space Marine player complaining that the Tau player refuses to engage them in close combat. I just refuse to accept that a strategy (any strategy) that is fully compliant with the rules - *especially* ones that are consistent with the fluff for the ships being used are somehow less valid or pure than another. I also think - having been on *both* sides of this strategy myself - that people are far undervaluing the fun/challenge that comes with the thrill of the chase. Nothing more satisfying (or heartbreaking, depending on whose side you're on) than finally blowing that elusive PTL Fel out of sky. I get the casual vs tournament commentary, but I think people are missing the idea that this scenario can still be fun regardless of the setting if you have the right people: a jerk is a jerk not just because of a tactic they use (and often not because of a tactic at all). It all boils down to attitude.