As a side, being defensive can also be considered by stalling if you stretch the definitions far enough.

You defined stalling...

Fortressing does not stall turns or play. Ergo, it is not stalling. Both players are still able to choose maneuvers, take action and make decisions in a timely manner.

My next question is how did Hsu's maneuver stop progress?

Counter Strategy: If you see your opponent setting up for this, set up your own fortress.

It wasn't against the rules. The authorities on the rules were standing there watching the game. It's not a question of the rules at all.

It's a question of the spirit of the game and sportsmanship, and these things are inherently subjective.

To stop or cause to stop making progress.

There was progress. The game progressed though turns just fine. So no it was not stalling by the rules definition because the game was in fact progressing.

Can you show me where in the 2014 tournament rules there is an official definition of stalling ?

Except you did imply it, FTS Gecko...

No I didn't. I suggested that it is potentially an infinite loop exploit which unfortunately isn't covered by the existing definition of an infinite loop in the rules. Please re-read the post and again, pay attention to what was actually said.

Can you show me where in the 2014 tournament rules there is an official definition of stalling ?

Can you show me where it's written that what he did is stalling? Also are you going to say that the people watching those games didn't know the rules well enough to know if what he was doing was stalling or not?

The existing definition doesn't cover this particular scenario VanorDM

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's incorrect. If FFG's TO's felt that what he was doing was violating the rules, then why didn't they get involved?

Apparently they weren't happy with the way he was playing, but they did nothing to stop him. So clearly they knew he wasn't violating the rules.

nevermind

FFG will kill it once it becomes viable.

FFG will kill it once it becomes viable.

If it becomes viable. So far it's never really proven to be an effective tactic.

The designers have already explicitly stated that the fortress strategy is within the game rules. There is no argument to be had here.

To the point, perhaps ties in the elimination rounds should be decided by coin flip or dice roll after the match. That way, even if you had initiative you could never be guaranteed a win regardless of what strategy you employ, and thus there would be no additional incentive to use such situational strategies.

Stick a fork in me - I'm done

here's to wishing that this year's final is every bit as good as this one:

as close to poetry as you can get with little plastic toy spaceships

No.

No its not good for the game ?

or

No it should not be arrata-ed?

The designers have already explicitly stated that the fortress strategy is within the game rules. There is no argument to be had here.

They also said if it ever becomes effective they'll deal with it.

Cheap cheese is cheap cheese. Having played him a few times, I can honestly say, he's kind of a prick, too.

Emon will come along and 'boom'.

Yeah - I know it's not cool to quote your own posts but humour me.

I just had a quick look at the FFG tournament rules for 2014.

Paragraph 2:

"For the 2014 Tournament season, all sanctioned competitive and premier

X-Wing tournaments must be run as Dogfight events."

static units are not, and cannot be, by definition, considered to be dogfighting

therefore fortress tactics are not in accordance with the fundamental principles of the tournament rules as set down by FFG.

Under the heading of Unsportsmanlike Conduct we have the following:

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to

play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling

a game for time.......

While the argument that fortress builds are neither mature nor considerate [to you opponent, to the spectators, or the spirit of the game] is very strong indeed, I'd agree that it is ever so slightly subjective and open to interpretation

However when it comes to the stalling for time criteria there can be no argument.

Therefore fortress tactics are not in accordance with the fundamental principles of the tournament rules as set down by FFG.

Dogfighting in the tournament rules has a very specific definition. It refers to a game type described in those same rules. It has nothing to do with what any other definition of the word "dogfight" maybe. That line you quoted indicates that all of the official FFG tournaments will the Dogfighting rules as oppossed to say the Escalation or Epic rules.

Einstein stated that there are only 2 infinite things. The universe and human's stupidity.

But he was wrong, there's a 3rd...

Human's ability to self-justificate from absolutely everything.

Hey guys. The Imperial Player here. Just a few things to clear things up.

I didn't force the issue or call a judge, I simply flew around for 70 minutes waiting for him to come out because I had initiative.

Yes it was annoying.

Yes it was a decent strategy.

Yes it was bad sportsmanship.

Yes I was extremely upset afterwards. In the Final Round I rolled 7 blanks and my single TiE was destroyed. He jumped and cheered like it was a big achievement and then wanted to shake my hand.

Yes i'm rooming with him, which makes things even more awkward.

Yes i've heard talk that FFG is going to sit down and decide whether or not this should be errata-ed

It was definitely uncool to make me fly around by myself for 70 min while he sat back and relaxed.

Ask me whatever

He didn't 'make' you do anything. You chose that course of action. I fail to see the unsportsmanlike conduct.

Nothing to ask Jiimbo. I think the expression of your experience shows what the result of this tactic is. If I see you at GenCon 2015, I'll buy you a beer.

For reference, here's the Worlds cheesefest which prompted the discussion

Someone also needs to point out how this is any different than the move up and down a side of the board we saw from "Typo" last night?

OK. Here you go:

Take a good look at the above picture. Look at the angles of approach the Imperial player has.

The Rebels are turtled up in the very corner of the board, facing inwards. They can all move out of the corner any time they want. And if they don't want to, there's not a **** thing the Imperials can do about it.

The Imperials cannot engage them until the Rebels choose to move out. If they do, they are going to have to either

a: turn away from the combat and present their tasty and fragile behinds to the Rebels, giving the Rebel ships many turns of free shots.

b: bump into the Rebels and cause a traffic jam in the corner or

c: fly past the Rebels and straight off the board.

The Rebels are exploiting the movement mechanics of the game - literally sitting in place and not moving - as well as the game area (their backs are facing off the board, so they cannot be outflanked or attacked from behind) and their opponent's fragility (the Rebels can potentially one-shot a TIE fighter, the Imperials cannot one-shot an X-Wing).

It's exploitation of the rules - simple as that. And totally against the spirit of the game.

Load the Assault Missiles in the tube and don't forget to set laser cannons to Ruthlessness. The Rebel Scum has never made their end more inevitable than before. This will be like SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL! (p.s. bonus points for each bomb token dropped right next to them.)

Okay on a more serious note and to address the concerns for the OP I can see the frustration. This tactic although technically follows the rules and it has very much broke the theme of the game which was supposed to be fluid movement of starfighter units in a three-dimensional environment projected on a two-dimensional plane. X-wing was never meant to play this way as a static line shooting match. Everything in space is always on the move.

Now on one side I can see the argument it does provide a small advantage of not having to worry about moves. On the other side the advantage is so weak and there are so many disadvantages (no actions, having your opponent know exactly where you will be the subsequent turn) that it doesn't warrant any errata at the moment. I will admit it isn't like the 40k rule loophole that allows 2 units of 50 guardsmen with camo-cloak mixed together so that they all have a 3+ cover save in the open field so your templates are less effective. Still this is just as immersion breaking as having another squad act as a bullet shield without taking any damage because it wasn't the squad you were shooting at.

I fail to see the unsportsmanlike conduct.

"Sportsmanship (or sometimes sportspersonship) is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors."

Every game, tabletop or not, gives players the opportunity to bend the rules and use tactics which make the game unfun or uninteresting for other players. Ruining other players fun because you figured out how to break the game is nothing to be proud of, win or lose. Ships in X-wing were NEVER meant to remain stationary indefinately without even suffering damage or stress, I find it a bit disturbing that people are actually defending this non-sense, regardless of if its "legal" or not.

Nothing to ask Jiimbo. I think the expression of your experience shows what the result of this tactic is. If I see you at GenCon 2015, I'll buy you a beer.

Sounds good to me