You know, I'll give you that one. Winning an argument with you isn't much of a victory at all. Let me point you - AGAIN - towards FFG's very own announcement on the matter, with my emphasis to help since you seem to be having issues with comprehension. I really don't understand how you could fail to agree (even if you don't like it) that such a strategy could fall within the parameters of what they are trying to achieve. Your argument basically says that you have to kill the enemy in their entirety (or apparently die trying to) - the below paragraph specifically says that you need not: "First, we made full wins significantly easier to achieve. Under the new rules, a player only needs to destroy at least 12 squad points (the lowest squad point cost of a single ship) more than his or her opponent, which means players no longer have to build their lists with total annihilation in mind and can opt for a slightly more tactical, defensive game if they wish." It really isn't. But you're never going to like that, are you? And there we have it, folks, the obligatory iPeregrine unfounded accusation of cheating. What did I tell you? If there's one thing I've come to expect from you more than your unfounded accusations of cheating, it's your succinct ability to make my arguments for me. It's not me that's having the issue differing between the two - but the irony of such a statement coming from you made me chuckle, so I'll thank you for that at least. No to all of the above. You're expected to make a good-faith effort to win the game by achieving the victory condition of destroying all of your opponent's ships. I've underlined your part of the quote to show how you don't get it, or are so authoritarian or lacking in imagination that you choose not to. Again, thanks for making my argument for me. Let me rehash for you - again - how victory conditions in tournaments work. By getting the most tournament points. How are the points calculated? By the type of win you get. How are the type of wins determined - by your point margin - not just by killing everything in sight. The end goal is not (necessarily) to kill all enemy ships. Or even try to. Am I wrong? Never said it was the only hope (and I've already showed you -whether you believe my reports or not - it's not even my most common), just that it is one. Your the one with the limited mindset on victory, not me. You argue that a particular tactic is illegitimate (when it isn't), cry that people suggesting such cheat (when they don't) and complain that they should be banned (when they shouldn't). To me, you're clearly the one showing unsportsmanlike behaviour, but to each his own I guess.

Not you again. Shall I point you to the last thread on this topic when I put you in your place for blatantly -and without any proof, mind - accused anyone and everyone of not playing the game your way as being a cheat. For those that missed that show, in that thread I argued that exactly the same position the OP is taking here is a completely legitimate one. Let's summarise the reasons: 1. For what it's worth, FFG in their recent changes to the tournament rules have openly supported this as viable tactic to use - they are supporting it! 2. Table throwing whiners like iPeregrine like to intentionally confuse the definition of 'stalling' to gain sympathy and mislead. 'Stalling' is taking undue time to do your dials and place/move your models to eat up the clock. It is cheating/poor sportsmanship and should be dealt with. What we are talking about here is NOT that. 3. As someone that loves playing pure squint lists, what scares me about this argument is that your basically arguing that we should be playing the game YOUR way and ONLY your way (and anything else is cheating). By extension, to me that sounds like we should just all play slow moving tankier ships like X's and B's and to hell with any sort of variety to the game. Is that what you really want? 4. Playing Squints or A's this way is *perfectly* in sync with the fluff for those ships. They are not designed to be straight up fighters. The WAAC argument I've seen here is just utter rubbish. As TezzasGames said - you want to see WAAC in action, go and play 40k and see how people mangle the fluff just to win the game. X-Wing is not only one of the most balanced 'wargame' rule sets I've played, it also entirely encourages play that matches the fiction - and slippery Squints and A wings is just that. 5. The argument that 'But X-Wing is a dog fighting game; you need to dogfight' is rubbish as well. It's *not* just a dogfighting game - it comes with scenarios that have goals other than destruction, remember? Also, if that were the logic, we should just ban anything with a turrent or Falcons or whatever, they ruin that aesthetic too, don't they? 6. Arguing that the clock is an artificial restriction that changes the way you would otherwise play is besides the point. If we're going down that path, I'd like to note that I'd rather play on a 5x5 board as well as that would much better suit the fleeting nature of these ships. There are plenty of fluffy reasons to justify not only the restrictions that are imposed in game and our various approaches to dealing with these restrictions. --------- Ultimately, I can't stand people that demand we play the game their way. I want to play squints and I want to have fun. Strangely, I also want to win and have fun. Squints and As play best as a flanking hit and run type of ship and are supposed to play that way. If you can't handle that, either as a player or a person, then I pity you. --------- For what it's worth to the OP, my favourite list at the moment is Jax and 2 Royal Guard Pilots, each with PTL, Royal Guard Title, Stealth Upgrade and Shield. I won the last local tournament with that list, with one out of the three games played using this tactic to win in a tense last 10 minute game of cat and mouse. The response on the day wasn't an angry mob of pitchfork and torch wielding villagers, it was a heap of 'Well Done!' - as if it were a breath of fresh air for that type of list to win. Also playing the same list in the Vassal based Galactic Cup that's on at the moment (in which there is no time limit). Had some awesome games so far, most of which have gone for 3+ hours in an awesome struggle of hit and run tactics. Sometimes I've been the one being chased, sometimes I've been the one chasing. In all instances, everyone had a great time.

Interested - given what we know - if anyone thinks a hammer/anvil type list of a defender and two phantoms will be competitive upon release. Anyone made any lists along those lines?

Hi there, Am thinking of repainting some of my models - just wondering if anyone has any advice re what to use for removing the existing paint jobs (if possible). I'm in Australia, so any brands available here would be the preference - though I'll take whatever advice I can get! Thanks in advance.

We get bonuses and penalties for range, but I thought it might be interesting if we also had the same for speed. Something like: +1 Attack dice when targeting someone that moved '1' movement; and +1 Defense dice when being targeted and having flown at speed '5' Thought it might more accurately reflect the benefits of flying fragile but fast moving ships. Thoughts?

Been away from the Star Wars universe for a long, long time now - but obviously the game has reinvigorated my interest. Keen to know which books are the best to read - especially in relation to the Imperial Pilots (Fel, Jax etc)...?

Worth noting that - IMO at least - FFG now use the GW settings (40k/Fantasy) much, much better than GW does...

So for what it's worth, I attended the monthly tournament at my local store today, flying the following: - Carnor Jax - 2 Royal Guard Pilots - All of which were equipped with the Royal Guard Title, PTL, Stealth Device and a Shield Upgrade (100pts). The event consisted of three matches, in each of which I flew the two guard as a pair and Jax as slow flying bait separately, that struck once the time was right. I don't remember the exact details of the enemy squads, but at a high level, they went as follows: 1. 2 Firesprays 2. Luke, Biggs and a heavily outfitted Y-Wing 3. Wedge and 2 B-Wings The first and third games I won 100-0, though I was tempted to employ this strategy with the Firesprays - I would have in fact, but found that with positioning it was possible to take him out almost risk free. So I did. The second game was more interesting. I managed to take Biggs out fairly quickly and - because of positioning - decided to take on (and beat) Luke. It was a bloody affair, but managed to take him out losing only one ship (and the rest were quite damaged). All the while I was trying to stay out of range of the Y-Wing as it would have devastated me if it hit. About 5-7 minutes remained by then and which point I switched to pure defensive and ran for it. Granted it was a Y-wing, but it was easy to do. Clock ran out and I won a full win (even under the old rules - 68 - 38 I think). I asked my opponent what he thought at the end of it and he said he had no problem - it's what he would have done. I ended up winning the whole event. A couple of points that I went away noting: - Set up the asteroids as close to your edge as possible. With the speed of the interceptors, I spent most of the fight on the enemy's side, which meant I had lots of room to flee away in (and could do so at speed). - The defensive combination of the squint's 3 agility, PTL's focus and evade as well as the stealth device was just awesomely effective. Seems to me the SD's get a lot of grief mathematically speaking, but for a lot of the time I was rolling 4 or 5 defense dice and at one point, with the help of an asteroid, got to roll 6. I really like this defensive interceptor build. Granted today was by no means a perfect sample of what I could be up against. I didn't come up against any falcons, swarms or ion weapons, for example. Tense, nail biting fun and left me feeling this is what squints are all about.

Thank you for addressing the point of the thread. I tend to agree with you, but was just curious to see if anyone thought the odds might be better now.

There are so many assumptions, accusations and just plain incomprehension in this last post that it's getting hard to take you seriously anymore. Where to start? Yes, that's right. Well done. The problem is that to me that's not stalling. Anything outside of the actual game (such as taking too much time to do your dials, or place/move your ships) is stalling, which is a form of cheating and one I agree should be dealt with. But for the millionth time, that's not what I'm proposing. But I get it - it wouldn't matter to you how fast I did my dials or moved my ships, would it? You'd still spit the dummy. From my point of view it's ALL about risk vs reward. But what I think you really mean is 'It's about whether or not I'm playing your game.' How arrogant to assume that the only way to play the game is the way you do. Well done again! Leaving aside your inability to see any legitimate strategy outside of the ones you employ, I think I've already said that a no time limit would make the approach redundant. In fact, I believe that was my point. You know what? Here you're just wrong. How are winners determined in tournaments? By getting the most tournament points. How are the points calculated? By the type of win you get. How are the type of wins determined - by your point margin - not just by killing everything in sight. Am I wrong? Way to be consistent. On the one hand you state your response is based on my own claims in this thread - and then you follow it up again straight away with another completely unfounded accusation of cheating. That's twice now - you're getting good at this! That's both naive and yet again another accusation of cheating (Three! Do I win a prize?). I would love to get more turns in with these lists in current tournaments. It doesn't benefit me at all to play slowly with them. Not at all. I've already explained how a greater amount of time (as measured in turns) is required to win with these lists. Do you not get it? Are you telling me the above lists are competitive in the current (prior to change) environment? You don't like the strategy? Fine, I think I'll be able to live with that. You know what? I don't much like turret weapons or ion weapons or double falcons. They're hell for lists like these. But I enjoy going up against them for the challenge. Because they're something different (for me at least as I've never used them so far). Different strategies are good for the game. They are, really. But just because you don't like them doesn't make them invalid, or even wrong. Deal with it or go home. --- I can't be bothered quoting you anymore. In effect, what you seem to be saying is that the only legitimate way to play the game is the way you do and not only that, but people who play in another way that you don't like - despite being within the rules (and arguably within the fluff, though I concede that's subjective) - should be outlawed. Now I not only not think much of your abilities, but I don't think you're much of a player, either.

Exactly right; thanks for the support!

I'm not sure if you're deliberately obtuse, or are just genuinely having difficulty grasping the idea. If my whole strategy depended entirely on avoiding combat, the game would end in a draw. As I've said, it's still a high risk approach to take and unlike a double YT-1300 list (which just sits back and waits me for to come into turret range), I would have to go out, hunt you down and then retreat - all the while being (presumably) hounded by your ships. And I'm sure if there was a risk free chance to let rip at your ships in the midst of all this, I'd leap on it. Nice attitude. Clearly your argument is based on some negative experiences you've had as opposed to seeing how the change offers different strategies to the game. Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to play the game is to pound each into oblivion - and as such, anyone else not playing for a full table wipe should be removed from the event? Cause that's not FFG are saying. ...which, along with careful maneuvering, is exactly what I would be doing. Thanks for making my point again. I've already stated that I can't spend the game just evading you. FFG are clearly saying that they're offering more defensive players a greater chance of winning and that's what I'm asking about. Good grief, it's just a game, relax. But I don't like being labelled a cheat - so in return, I say that if the only way you can deal with such an approach is to cry foul to the TO about how it's all unfair, then it doesn't say much about your abilities.

Of course not. But you realise you're making my point for me, right? That in an infinite time limit scenario there's only one winning condition - no modified wins at all, just total annihilation of the enemy squad. But in a 75 minute scenario, under the current rules, squads such as these have bugger all chance of winning. Let me turn your test around, then - if tournament time limits were infinite, would you see only the same builds you see at tournaments now being successful? I'll answer it for you. See that third squad in my OP (Vader, Jax and Fel)? I regularly win with it in Vassal games and non tournament games at my local store, but almost never in proper tournaments. Why? Because it takes time to outflank and chip away at the enemy - time not available in a typical tournament game. The change in tournament scoring and the strategy I mentioned at the start (plus skill and luck as always) now gives me a chance at least. You're being ridiculous (how many double falcon board edge flying players have you heard of being disqualified for such an act?) as well as confusing dodgy player behaviour (taking too long to place dials or move ships etc etc) with a legitimate defensive strategy, given the set winning conditions. If you can't hunt me down and deal with me in the time available (even assuming I get that early kill untouched), that's your problem - not mine, or the TO's. For what it's worth, it's also completely in character for a squad of squints to snipe at an enemy, wounding them for a later kill by others - which is what such a scenario could well represent. Are you sure you read all of the announcement, here? Let me quote the appropriate part for you, (my emphasis added): "First, we made full wins significantly easier to achieve. Under the new rules, a player only needs to destroy at least 12 squad points (the lowest squad point cost of a single ship) more than his or her opponent, which means players no longer have to build their lists with total annihilation in mind and can opt for a slightly more tactical, defensive game if they wish." Seems to me that's just the strategy I'm talking about, or at least a version thereof. The change to the initiative rule also helps in this regard.

Why get mad? Sure, if time wasting was involved, but that's not what I was suggesting at all. And it's hardly a certain win anyway. But it's an interesting way of mixing things up for an enemy: the pressure on them to chase me down assuming I get an early kill turns the tables a bit. Besides, it's clearly a strategy FFG were trying to offer with the change. I think I'll go with the classic 4xRG list...

With the new tournament rules, I'm wondering if a pure squint list is now potentially more competitive that it might once have been. Not aimed at taking out the enemy completely, perhaps, but through picking off the weakest enemy ship as quickly as possible and then flying defensively (avoiding combat completely if I can) for the rest of the round. Two lists I'm toying with for an event tomorrow: - Classic 4x Royal Guard with PT (I see this quoted a lot, but haven't heard much feedback - do people have much success with this?) - 3 Royal Guard, with PTL, Stealth Device and Shield Upgrade (98pts I think) (A more defensive, less offensive version of the above) OR, my previous favourite list (not pure squints, but close): - TIE Advanced with Darth, Opportunist, Cluster Missiles - Soontir Fel with PTL - Carnor Jax with PTL (High PS and really manouverable). I know that in the grand scheme of the meta, these builds aren't highly competitive, but they are the type that I enjoy playing. So...which do you think is best, and do you think the strategy above is a realistic option for smaller, more agile squads these days?

...rng's?

As a beginner to X-Wing and to the Vassal system generally, I've found this mod just awesome. I'm getting so much more practice in than would otherwise be possible given work and kid raising duties and am playing in two online tournaments (including the one above). At the very least, its great for practicing your movements etc - and I've had some great and really close games - including with Muon just this morning - an epic battle, broken up by diaper changes on both sides and went to the last ship each. Great fun; highly recommended.

I'd love to sign up, but I'm finding the Team Covenant site impossibly difficult to register to.

Hi there, I'm just starting to experiment with TIE Bombers. Was keen to try an all Bomber list - this is what I've come up with: Captain Jonus - Squad Leader - Cluster Missiles Scimitar Squadron Pilot (x3), each with: - Cluster Missiles - Concussion Missiles 100 pts. Haven't had a chance to try it yet, but seems a simple enough list to me. Fly the Scimitars out front, use Jonus for the re-rolls and squad leader for adjustments as necessary. Unload with concussion missiles first, then cluster missiles and hope that there's not much left to mop up afterwards. Is this any good?

Sorry to resurrect such as old thread, but as a relatively new player I ran into this situation for the first on my first Vassal game tonight. In this case, it was my ship that was at risk but I was actually under the impression that I'd lose it (for clarity's sake, it was only the template that went out; the ship started and ended inside). My opponent and a couple of observers were very cool about it and actually thought i *wouldn't* lose the ship for the reasons mentioned in this thread...but we weren't 100% sure. just wondering if in the time that has elapsed, has anyone had this confirmed one way or the other in a tournament event or similar? Any help appreciated..

Thanks for the comments, all. Awesome that all of the replies contain different builds for the same parameters and yet they all look viable to me. Such flexibility in a game is a refreshing change to say the least. @PenguinBonaparte - thanks for the video - I've seen some of the Team Covenant stuff, but hadn't actually seen that one. The poor Rebel player had a pretty bad start. Would like to fit Dark Curse in as he seems a good survivor, but that would mean giving up the Stealth Device at a minimum and either keeping Swarm Tactics (which perhaps isn't as necessary as you're in effect getting a higher pilot skill anyway with the relatively hard to kill Dark Curse, or keeping it and pushing the total points out to exactly 100. So, then - does having the initiative actually end up being a big deal? Or is it worth spending the points so that the list then looks like this at 100pts: Howlrunner - Swarm Tactics Backstabber Dark Curse 4 Academy Pilots Or from the above, change it so that there's no swarm tactics (98pts) or replace swarm tactics with the stealth device to give Howlrunner some longevity and make it 99? I realise there's no right answer here, just looking for advice and angles I perhaps haven't considered. From what I've read, TIE swarms play better as a 'go hard, go early' type of army, so better to focus on offence rather than defense? Again, thanks for the help.

Hi all, I’ve recently made the decision to migrate away from 40k/Warhammer Fantasy (as frankly those systems are getting out of control – 40k in particular) in order to explore other options. X-Wing was one game at the top of my list of things to try and so here I am. I’m going to just jump in the deep end so to speak as I’ve signed up to a local tournament in a couple of weeks and wanted to post my initial list to see what feedback it generates. I’m interested in primarily Imperial Navy armies, with my total model count at present being 7 TIE fighters (including the expansion). As such, I’m going with my take on a TIE swarm (thinking if I can master the manoeuvring required for them it’ll be good for anything else I might try in the future). Anyway, here’s the list: Howlrunner - Swarm Tactics - Stealth Device Backstabber 5 Academy Pilots The theory being that I’ll run Howl and the academy pilots as a blob keeping within range 1 and mass shoot whatever comes into range, using swarm tactics to bump up an academy pilot every turn. Backstabber will act on his own as either a distraction to peel away some enemy, or – if they don’t take the bait – then starts assassinating rogue style from behind (I’m also a D&D player and love rogues generally, so Backstabber appeals to me). So pretty straight forward. Thoughts? Seems that 7 TIEs is the best number of ships to field, so any other suggestions that make it to that number are welcome. Thanks for any comments.