What do you think?

Is the movement tactic of two YTs to fortress, an infinite combo? Intentionally moving into each other to remain stationary.

My own opinion by the strictest interpretation of the rules, NO.

But I think an argument exists labeling as such because you could do this every turn(infinitly), and its very close to rules abuse.

What do you guys gals think?

Another possible way to argue this, the matches are DOGFIGHT as called by FF. And the fortress move is not dogfighting?

Webster sez

Dogfight

2 : a fight between two or more fighter planes usually at close quarters

An infinite combo is one which repeats indefinitely without allowing anything else could happen. In effect, you go "A triggers B triggers A triggers B triggers A..." and so on until time expires. The Fortress builds do not qualify.

There is also no game definition for "dogfighting".

Sorry, as annoying as it may be, there's nothing remotely illegal about the Fortress.

I concur.

While I also believe that the 'YT fortress' build detracts from the very basic concept of the game, it is not an illegal or an infinite combo per se.

I have e-mailed the rules dept. at FFG about this and posted a thread in the main forum about this issue. I spoil the strategy behind it and give tips on taking it out.

YT Fortress Build - What it is and how to defeat it.

FFG responded that they are aware of it and may update the rules system if it becomes a problem.

What setting did this YT fortress encounter take place? Home game, tournament?

What about the rules abuse language. It doesn't really define what abuse is.

Bur webster defines

Abuse

1 : a corrupt practice or custom

And corrupt as

1 a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions;

b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values

Now we are getting someplace, maybe? Seriously though I think based on these definitions it could be argued as rules abuse.

Or we hope FF just makes a rule change that sez that ANY large ship that overlaps hits another treats it like an obstacle.

Now we are getting someplace, maybe?

FFG has made their stance clear on this. It's not abuse or against the rules. It's not even that good of a trick, it's not hard to defeat the YT fortress.

Seeing how you feel about it I suggest you send an e-mail in to FFG so that your viewpoint can be registered and when they get enough people upset over it then they will have to make a rules resolution about it.

Is blocking your opponent abusing the rules? Is intentionally blocking your own shuttle abusing the rules?

There are penalties in place for colliding with ships, including your own. So long as those penalties are in place, I'm not sure it's abuse.

There's always a fine line where the definition of abuse is basically just "Something I don't like". And not to put too fine a point on it, but when you take two or three different cycles looking for reasons to shut something down, it seems like it's just something you don't like that you're looking for an excuse to kill.

IMHO, abuse has to extend to something beyond the rules, not just creative use of in-game effects. For example, there was a recent debate over on BGG where someone wanted to swap their interceptor paint jobs (i.e. fly Jax as normal, and an Alpha as red) to try and confuse their opponent. There's no game effect there, and trying to confuse your opponent is, IMHO, abusing the paint rules. That's largely because it has nothing to do with game rules or effects. If there were some penalty involved - say Jax rolled one less attack die if he weren't wearing red - I'd be less inclined to consider it abuse.

Oh boy, this again!

A YT-1300 moves, overlaps, and moves back so it is no longer overlapping. Other YT moves, overlaps, returns. I don't see any "infinite" combo in there. I don't see any difference between that and having a ship do 1-turns the entire game (after it's moved far enough from the edge so it doesn't fly off.) There is no more "abuse" going on here than many other strategies us. I guess if that is unfair we should just ban collisions altogether.

Maybe it's time to start a writing campaign SUPPORTING the right of player to use the Falcon Fortress strategy if they so choose. You don't like something so you cry to FFG while many others recognize it is a perfectly legitimate option. There are only a few people here who think that a Fortress strategy should be illegal although there are many others who believe it isn't a good enough strategy to get your panties in a bundle over even if it can be a bit annoying because it is still perfectly legal. Of course the haters whine and eventually the squeaky wheel may get its grease.

Oh boy, this again!

A YT-1300 moves, overlaps, and moves back so it is no longer overlapping. Other YT moves, overlaps, returns. I don't see any "infinite" combo in there. I don't see any difference between that and having a ship do 1-turns the entire game (after it's moved far enough from the edge so it doesn't fly off.) There is no more "abuse" going on here than many other strategies us. I guess if that is unfair we should just ban collisions altogether.

Maybe it's time to start a writing campaign SUPPORTING the right of player to use the Falcon Fortress strategy if they so choose. You don't like something so you cry to FFG while many others recognize it is a perfectly legitimate option. There are only a few people here who think that a Fortress strategy should be illegal although there are many others who believe it isn't a good enough strategy to get your panties in a bundle over even if it can be a bit annoying because it is still perfectly legal. Of course the haters whine and eventually the squeaky wheel may get its grease.

Really, the Falcon Fortress (and the Shuttle Station) tactics are the same as spinning in circles, except 4x faster. It's a combination of maneuvers that ends you in the same place.

In my original posting I agreed it WAS legal. And its NOT the SAME as flying in circles. Fortressing is not unbeatable, by any means. Fortressing lets you gain the effect of move not on the dial. As often as you want, with a penalty. The shuttle actually has that move, with a harsher penalty! Yes its legal.