Quibble about specific definitions all you want, it's still an exploit.

Yes it is. A rather unfun but totally legal one (and from the sound of it, a hail mary, 'OMG how am I going to deal with this list' play that he lucked out on paying off), the merits of which have been, can and will be discussed ad nauseum in this and many other threads. It is NOT, however, and infinite loop as you asserted earlier.

I thought there was something in the rules about "infinite loop" or something like that. Wouldn't fortressing be consider an infinite loop?

There is such a line, but I believe it relates to pilot abilities/upgrade cards, and unfortunately not to movement. Because you're right, this is potentially an infinite loop exploit.

So far the only lesson I've learned today is that from now on every at tournament I'm going to ask my opponent "Fly Casual?" and if he responds with "Fly Casual" i'll continue playing as i have been, but if he responds in the negative i should utilize every rule lawyering trick i picked up playing 40k and badger my opponent on every ambiguity because hey, we're being competitive here, and good sportsmanship has no place.

Good luck winning worlds.

Shouldn't be a problem since its expected to win at all costs and i do in fact know how to play that way, i just rather wouldn't.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

This is a good article.

Well, there's no point arguing about whether it's sportsmanlike or not. That's a matter of opinion and I get the impression most people involved here aren't open to changing theirs.

Personally, I don't like it, but the idea of "a fix for it would introduce more problems than it solves" got me thinking. What if you had a token assigned each time you bump someone, to a maximum of two (just to save on tokens), if you have two then [some penalty happens], if you complete a manoeuvre all such tokens applied to your ship are removed. "Ah, but this could be exploited" you say. Yeah, and exploiting that actually sounds like a cool tactic. Ramming somebody to potentially hurt them, at the possible cost of hurting yourself, is surely better than ramming yourself painlessly, and adds a cool new tactic, which in my opinion would be more interesting than this one.

thats not bad. FFG r u reading this?

thats not bad. FFG r u reading this?

It is NOT, however, and infinite loop as you asserted earlier.

It seems as though you're good with some definitions, but not with others. In case you missed it, the key word was in that quote was "potentially". It is an exploit that can potentially be repeated in the movement phase of every turn, in an infinite loop.

Are you saying it isn't a clear and unsportsmanlike exploit of the rules then VanorDM? In any case, I don't believe FFG have commented on this particular incident yet. If they have and have approved of it, please direct me to their quote and I'll concede your point.

But in this game's terms, no, it can never be an infinite loop.

Yes, you can keep on doing it, but just because you can continue to focus every turn means that it would be an infinite loop.

Link please?

There was an email posted on the Rules form a year and half ago, from Frank one of the head developers for the game. He said it was a legit tactic but one they'd be keeping an eye on in case it proved to be too good.

Which so far it hasn't because it's typically not that hard to beat a fortress if you try.

regardless of the rules technicallities, if the game in question had been the world championship final this would have been a farce in so much that its an untimed match and they would have stalled out till it got very uncomfortable, for all involved.

in terms of a solution, a simple one might be:

For every turn past the 3rd turn if you ship has not fully left the deployment zone recieve a stress/take a damage/something bad.

attempting to fortress after moving outside your deployment zone would be a significant challenge I suspect.

This is a very polarising situation that happened at the highest levels of competitive play, I can only image that it will at the very least be address by FFG regardless of whether they change the rules or not.

PLaying within the 'Spirit of the game' is an area with shades of grey. What one player considers fair and within the rules another player can consider poor sportsmanship.

Only up to a point - if you aren't prepared to dogfight in a dogfighting game then the question of sportsmanship is cut and dried

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.

Gentlemen,

After reading four pages in this thread there are several things I noticed;

1. There seems to be a general fear this tactic shall be employed more often, however in this particular game it didn't grant the rebel player a win. As noted the horrible 7 blanks on the green dice did. The strategy is very risky and he could just as easily have lost it. At which point we would have nodded with sattisfaction and said:'Ha! That doesn't work in X-wing!' So why the fear this will escalate in massive use in the future?

2. Several of previous posters noted this fortress is breakable with a flanking maneuvre. As can be seen on the pictures this is what the Phantom is positioned to do. As is written in the OP, the fortress is broken up. Probably because of it.

3. The game was played between two people who knew each other well. Each others strengths and weaknesses, not only the squad, but the persons as well. They both started hesitantly. One with a fortress, one with slow movements, creating an image where the game seems to be stalled on purpose.

However, try to view them as two samurai, swords drawn. One, with heavier armor, cornered, awaiting a move. The other, in lighter armor, slowly moving in a right hand side curve around him, looking for an opening. Both hesitant to strike first, both weighing each other. It is a mind game. One wrong move, one mistake, and you loose.

That's how they fought: one strike, one win.

Of course, if you were thinking to watch a western slugg-it-all-out boxing match, teeth and blood flying around. Well, then it seems a bit slow...

4. Sportsmanship is not a very objective term. For those who have seen soccer, if one player kicks another this is unsportsmanlike conduct. However, when his opponent makes a great drama out of it and begs for the kicking person to be punished, that is unsportsmanlike conduct too. As is, by the way, teaming up with a large amount of people against one player, who used one , for the majority aesthetically displeasing, strategy one-single-time. I understand your dislike, I prefer more of a dogfight-brawl as well. But try to see this was probably more a battle of two minds off the table, than one of two squads on it.

It does have a beauty of it's own...

Aren't there a whole bunch of solutions to this problem? A single ion token wrecks the fortress completely; ion pulse missiles would be devastating. Assault missiles help, Intimidation should be pretty good too.

But in this game's terms, no, it can never be an infinite loop.

Yes, you can keep on doing it, but just because you can continue to focus every turn means that it would be an infinite loop.

That's not the same thing at all Sithborg, and you know it.

The player is effectively exploiting the rules to perform a maneuver that isn't actually present on their ship's dial (a zero maneuver, and a stressless one at that). The exploit happens in such a way that the player can continue to use it every turn until the end of the game if they so choose.

That's not in any way the same thing as performing an action that's present on your pilot card every turn.

The rebel player did get a win, just not past top 8. And yeah, those guys are from my city and they're rooming together, so our facebook group is a bundle of laughs atm...

And neither is it anywhere close to what is considered an infinite loop, in terms of game rules. It does not stall the game between just the combo of interactions, as the opponent still moves as normal. The fact it happens from round to round means it cannot be an infinite loop.

Yes, they can stay where they are as long as they want. But, that in no way makes it an infinite loop, by the game's terms of what an infinite loop.

Aren't there a whole bunch of solutions to this problem? A single ion token wrecks the fortress completely; ion pulse missiles would be devastating. Assault missiles help, Intimidation should be pretty good too.

All situational counters, as they have to be factored into your build to begin with. Look at the opponent in question's list, and tell us how they could have adopted their tactics to deal with this exploit without putting themselves in very a dangerous situation in the process (i.e. charging down the guns of 3 X wings and a Z-95 with nowhere to go afterwards but back the way they came)

From my point of view, if I am playing the XXXZ list and my opponent is flying the phantom, I've almost certainly lost (playing in the traditional way) unless my opponent is a significantly worse player than me. Conversely if I'm flying the phantom in that position, I'm going to be very confident of winning unless my opponent is vastly better than me or I do something very silly. It's a terrible match up for the rebel player and he was basically screwed. He tried something extreme which wouldn't fly in a friendly match, but given the circumstances I don't think it was terrible sportsmanship.

Honestly I think the lynch mob mentality is really unjustified. Ditto the calls for a rules change.

Yes, they can stay where they are as long as they want. But, that in no way makes it an infinite loop, by the game's terms of what an infinite loop.

And once again, no-one has suggested that particular definition. Read my original post on the subject, Sithborg. And pay attention this time:

Where do I state that this would be an "infinite loop by the game's terms of what is an infinite loop"? That's right - I don't, do I? In fact, my post actually states that the reference to an "infinite loop" in the rules would not be applicable in this case!

That doesn't mean that what the shameless exploiter in question has done isn't a potential (again, key word here) form of infinite loop exploit - it just means that the existing definition doesn't cover this particular shameless, exploitative behavior.

Honestly, ITT: Player makes a **** move - repeatedly - in a major tournament finals - FOR FORTY MINUTES; posters go out of their way to defend it. At this point, I'm just going to put two and two together and call it a night.

Fortressing is not stalling.

Except you did imply it, FTS Gecko...

that particular definition.

What other definition matters? If the rules definition doesn't matter then what does?

Gentlemen,

After reading four pages in this thread there are several things I noticed;

1. There seems to be a general fear this tactic shall be employed more often, however in this particular game it didn't grant the rebel player a win. As noted the horrible 7 blanks on the green dice did. The strategy is very risky and he could just as easily have lost it. At which point we would have nodded with sattisfaction and said:'Ha! That doesn't work in X-wing!' So why the fear this will escalate in massive use in the future?

2. Several of previous posters noted this fortress is breakable with a flanking maneuvre. As can be seen on the pictures this is what the Phantom is positioned to do. As is written in the OP, the fortress is broken up. Probably because of it.

3. The game was played between two people who knew each other well. Each others strengths and weaknesses, not only the squad, but the persons as well. They both started hesitantly. One with a fortress, one with slow movements, creating an image where the game seems to be stalled on purpose.

However, try to view them as two samurai, swords drawn. One, with heavier armor, cornered, awaiting a move. The other, in lighter armor, slowly moving in a right hand side curve around him, looking for an opening. Both hesitant to strike first, both weighing each other. It is a mind game. One wrong move, one mistake, and you loose.

That's how they fought: one strike, one win.

Of course, if you were thinking to watch a western slugg-it-all-out boxing match, teeth and blood flying around. Well, then it seems a bit slow...

4. Sportsmanship is not a very objective term. For those who have seen soccer, if one player kicks another this is unsportsmanlike conduct. However, when his opponent makes a great drama out of it and begs for the kicking person to be punished, that is unsportsmanlike conduct too. As is, by the way, teaming up with a large amount of people against one player, who used one , for the majority aesthetically displeasing, strategy one-single-time. I understand your dislike, I prefer more of a dogfight-brawl as well. But try to see this was probably more a battle of two minds off the table, than one of two squads on it.

It does have a beauty of it's own...

I disagree - but that's the best argument I've seen in favour of this

I'm wondering this: if the Imperial player had simply flown around, knowing he'd win on initiative, would he have been a bad sport to do so as a reaction to Richard's fortress?

I think what Richard did was brilliant, legal, impressive, and poor sportsmanship. I think what the Imperial player did was understandable, a mistake, and good sportsmanship.

I'm so conflicted.

If FFG feels the need to address it, it could be very simple: "If both players do not have the opportunity to inflict damage by Turn 5, the game ends and is recorded as a draw."

The burden on winning was on Richard. The onus was for him to be aggressive.

And you can't have a draw in the single elimination rounds.

Fortressing is not stalling.

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.