...what? When you verb-exploit a loophole in the rules, you're using a noun-exploit. They're not all that different.

In any case, my point was that I lost badly because my opponent continued using strategies that were effective, and I used "exploit" to underscore the fact that the difference between a legal, effective strategy and an "exploit" is whether the person doing the describing likes the strategy.

You can exploit a weakness without it being an exploit. They are very different things.

You're one of those guys who thought Johnny was the real hero in Karate Kid, weren't you?

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here and getting overly caught up in grammar patrol.

He was merely pointing out logical inconsistency in calling out a legal method of a play exploitative or unsportsmanlike or whatever.

Changing these rules might change the balance of the game play in an unexpected way.

Depends on how they change the rules. Anytime you do, you take the risk of invoking the law of unintended consequences. That's half it not more of the reason for play testing.

If they try to put in a rule that prevents a given tactic or strategy by using mechanics it is questionable if such a thing would even work, or perhaps cause more harm than good. Look at the idea someone came up with, about moving onto the board on the first turn rather than setting up in a deployment zone. The idea had some merit, but after looking at it was found to be more problematic than what it was going to fix.

That's why I'm in favor of letting the TO deal with it. It's subjective, but then again pretty much the whole argument is subjective in the first place. Plus it's a fix that runs little risk of causing issues, because it's all at the discretion of someone who in theory knows what they're doing.

That said...

An issue I have with making a given tactic illegal is gets very near the slippery slope... If we make fortressing illegal, because it's cheap... then what's next? What else will people campaign for to be removed because they don't like it.

Based on the number of things I've seen decried as cheap on these boards, we'd be left with a game consisting of what came in the core set and maybe 2 or 3 other ships.

Blocking, turrets, tie swarms, low PS generics, running when ahead, fortress, flying up and down one edge, not engaging after X turns, ect... Have all at one point or another been declared cheap and/or no fun.

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here and getting overly caught up in grammar patrol.

He was merely pointing out logical inconsistency in calling out a legal method of a play exploitative or unsportsmanlike or whatever.

That inconsistency is based on conflating "exploiting an intended weakness" with "exploiting a loophole". So the "grammar patrol", as you call it, is very relevant to the point at hand.

The core point several people are making here is that creating a good play experience is solely and entirely the duty of FFG, and if they leave loopholes in their system to be exploited then it's FFG's fault, and the player bears no responsibility for exploiting those - in fact, it's being argued by some that players have an affirmative responsibility to exploit loopholes, because not doing so makes them less competitive than they could be.

I simply don't agree with that. I believe we as players have a responsibility to help create a good play environment, and that means more than "Well, FFG hasn't fixed it yet, sorry."

...what? When you verb-exploit a loophole in the rules, you're using a noun-exploit. They're not all that different.

In any case, my point was that I lost badly because my opponent continued using strategies that were effective, and I used "exploit" to underscore the fact that the difference between a legal, effective strategy and an "exploit" is whether the person doing the describing likes the strategy.

You can exploit a weakness without it being an exploit. They are very different things.

You're one of those guys who thought Johnny was the real hero in Karate Kid, weren't you?

He kind of was - Daniel won using an illegal kick to the head.

What? You post baseless and INCREDIBLY aggressive statements all the time Dreadstar. On the other thread you jumped in out of nowhere, attacked me as the sole cause of this entire mess, and called me a "dice rolling scrub". Like i said there, go wash off your hypocrisy.

Aggressive maybe, sometimes, when people short minded just try to force their perspective and expectations unto others, or they will call them unsport/pricks/your pick... i get hot tempered, like you were doing past threads, baseless nope.

Oh please, AtomicFryingPan and i were getting much more heated in our arguments against each and we still kept it from personal attacks. We even cooled it off to a certain degree. Your first couple of posts in that entire thread tore into me specifically. And again refering to me as short minded, real class act. I'd even understand if we exchanged a few posts before you got hot tempered, but if you start off that way, you might want to work on your anger management issues.

An issue I have with making a given tactic illegal is gets very near the slippery slope... If we make fortressing illegal, because it's cheap... then what's next? What else will people campaign for to be removed because they don't like it.

Based on the number of things I've seen decried as cheap on these boards, we'd be left with a game consisting of what came in the core set and maybe 2 or 3 other ships.

Blocking, turrets, tie swarms, low PS generics, running when ahead, fortress, flying up and down one edge, not engaging after X turns, ect... Have all at one point or another been declared cheap and/or no fun.

This is true, but comes back to the question I keep asking - can anyone make a positive case for why fortressing is good for the game? Everything on your list - even things I don't like - I can make a positive case for the game being better with them. I may think they're not implemented as well as they are, but there is a solid case to be made for their presence.

There's also the exploit aspect of it. It's hard to argue that using turrets or swarms are an exploit. The fortress is a much easier case to claim as an exploit.

Any change, ever, is a slippery slope. "They made the A-wing two points cheaper, we're on a slippery slope to every ship having their cost cut in half so FFG doubles how many ships we have to buy!" Every change is a slope, they're always slippery, and that is controlled and managed by carefully considering any changes on their own merits.

it's being argued by some that players have an affirmative responsibility to exploit loopholes, because not doing so makes them less competitive than they could be.

I simply don't agree with that. I believe we as players have a responsibility to help create a good play environment, and that means more than "Well, FFG hasn't fixed it yet, sorry."

yeah....but it's tournament play at the highest levels. That is by definition a win at all legal costs environment and FFG, if they don't think it is in the spirit of what they are trying to do can kill it today if they choose. I agree with your general statement for FLGS play and then yes, the responsibility is on the local community to say something along the lines of 'hi, welcome to the event, game night, etc..., yes....this is legal but we generally ask people not to do that in the spirit of friendly, good natured, casual play - if this isn't the place for your style of play - here's the list of other stores"

yeah....but it's tournament play at the highest levels. That is by definition a win at all legal costs environment

No, it's really not. Or at least it doesn't have to be, and I don't think it should be.

Holding up pie in the sky, arbitrary, subjective morality and then shaming people for some break in an undocumented protocol when there are clear, objective standards of play (we call these objective standards 'rules') is ridiculous and in my opinion, makes for a more toxic culture than just playing by the rules we are given.

When you run FFG or officiate a tournament then it can be your call as to what tournament play "should" be.

Until then, I think it's equally bad form (or worse) to call out somebody for doing something clever and legal to try and win. I can't recall the guy's name, but on one of the feeds from Worlds, an FFG designer was commenting on a game and he was going nuts over a Han / Hwk list he had never seen before and was waxing rhapsodic on how thrilled they are to see people push the limits (no pun intended) and think of new combinations with these 'tools' (his words) they put out there. It is totally within FFG's rights and ability to decide 'that's too far' and make it illegal (and reports are that some official FFG folks watching it were unhappy) I honestly don't care either way - I'll never fly like that and have no interest to do so. (shrug)

I'm just not a big fan of arbitrary morality which is really what this boils down to

The Jan/Falcon lists were interesting.

can anyone make a positive case for why fortressing is good for the game?

I'm not trying to, because I don't think it is. I've said a number of times I'd be fine with letting the TO's deal with these kinds of issues with guidance from FFG on what is or isn't allowed.

The fortress is a much easier case to claim as an exploit.

Except, that FFG has stated point blank it's not an exploit in their mind. You are trying to argue Rules-as-you-think-they-should-be. In the face of official word from the game designers saying that fortressing is legit.

And it's not my duty make the experience enjoyable, any more then it is the other guys. I have no requirement to pull my punches in the name of 'a fun game'. I have no requirement to use only "FFG Form approved tactics". There is no code of conduct I signed saying I would avoid using something someone else thinks is cheap.

If something is bad for the game FFG needs to fix it, if they don't think it's bad for the game then it's fair game to use. If someone doesn't like it they have the option of playing with me or not. But I can not be expected to play by someone elses unwritten rules and opinion on the spirit of the game.

Because again, if we're talking about how the game is "meant to be played", the only objective answer to that is by the rules as written. Anything else and you now have people interjecting their opinions and we've entered the realm of RAI-IMO.

I think some of this, no offense to anybody, misses the larger point that as long as you can keep it from getting too personal and heated, the very existence of this discussion is a good thing.

Meaning, it matters less which side is right, or wrong, and more that each side is using the forum to be heard. I'm sure FFG takes some of that into account when considering issues like this - they have their own feeling on the matter, but how is the community reacting? If discussion seems to be strongly in favor of allowing or ruling against a tactic like Fortressing, that may very well help influence whether they decide to take an official stance on it.

So I think it's not terribly helpful to get bogged down in right or wrong, moral or immoral, tactic or exploit, and remember that you're just expressing a personal opinion on whether you think something is good or bad for the overall health of the game. You're never going to win the other side over, and everyone generally seems to agree in the end that they'll go along with whatever FFG decides on a given matter, grudgingly or gleeful, so why get so heated about it?

Express your opinion, make your voice heard, consider both sides and then carry on living your life without getting so worked up about it.

I'm curious to know how often people run into the Castle/Fortress tactic? I've played it maybe 3 times and have played against it 1 time, sense the game has come out. That's 4 times in 2 plus years. That's a very low impact on the game IMO.

It seems that people don't like this tactic because it's not in the spirit of the game. Once your on this topic, opinions will vary wildly as multiple posts have shown. Can either side be right when it comes down to how you feel. I don't really mind this tactic and I don't think it's bad for the game, but I know that others hate it. I rarely use this because in most cases I just don't think it will work, and their are other strategy's that I can try.

I can't think of a way to "Ban" the Castle/Fortress without making huge changes to the game. Is the Castle/Fortress tactic worth this much of an effort? For me I don't think so. If someone can give me a good reason for the change, and maybe some idea's on how they would change it, I would be willing to consider it and make the changes to how I play. As of now I don't think this impacts the game enough to make it worth the change.

The core point several people are making here is that creating a good play experience is solely and entirely the duty of FFG, and if they leave loopholes in their system to be exploited then it's FFG's fault, and the player bears no responsibility for exploiting those - in fact, it's being argued by some that players have an affirmative responsibility to exploit loopholes, because not doing so makes them less competitive than they could be.

I simply don't agree with that. I believe we as players have a responsibility to help create a good play environment, and that means more than "Well, FFG hasn't fixed it yet, sorry."

You're apparently reading a different conversation than I am. Here's the problem: you're proposing that there is some set of strategies that are legal but bad for the game, and that we should all abstain from using that set of strategies.

But you're not seeing the problems with that stance. First, how do we define what's bad for the game? The proximate cause for this discussion was the fortress tactic, but there are people here who will tell you that everything having to do with Phantoms should be banned. There are people who will say no, it's not everything about Phantoms, it's just Advanced Cloaking Device (ACD). Others think that all turrets should go, or just Falcons, or just the Falcon title, or just Threepio. If you go back further, you can find the same sort of discussions about Howlrunner. So who gets to decide what's bad for the game--that is, how do we decide what qualifies as "bad" in a way that's either objective or satisfies as many players as possible?

Second, having somehow identified a discrete set of things we don't want in the game, how exactly do we ban those things we don't like? Banning ACD would at least be easy, but what about Threepio + Falcon title? Do you just ban the combination, or do you ban both cards?

Third, how do you enforce such a ban? Suppose there's an extreme anti-fortress rule: any ship that bumps for two turns consecutively is destroyed. But now you're penalize players who accidentally bump for that duration without planning on it, and you're not removing the fortress--just pushing "fortress" players into moving a short distance every other round. All you can do with such a ban is push players into evolving and iterating their "bad" strategies; it's like playing whack-a-mole.

Each set of problems builds upon the rest, and the whole mess is unworkable. The alternative is to accept that as long as a strategy is technically legal within the framework we've all explicitly agreed to--that is, as long as you're following the rules--you should be able to play whatever you want. This eliminates the arbitrary nature of the first problem, removes the uncertainty around the second, and pulls the plug from the whack-a-mole game of the third.

So yes: if something legal is genuinely causing a negative play experience, and it's such an attractive strategy that it's seeing broad adoption, the problem is with the rules/FFG and not with the players.

I'm not saying that it's fun to play against a fortress (or as a fortress, for that matter), or that people have an affirmative responsibility to use the fortress (because that would require that I genuinely believe there's exactly one best strategy, which would be a problem even if that strategy were lots of fun for everyone). All I mean is that if you don't like any strategy/technique/list/upgrade/what-have-you, then the responsible, non-arbitrary solution is to focus on figuring out something better to use against it, rather than spending your time and energy railing about it when there's literally nothing you can accomplish except to put someone else down.

Except, that FFG has stated point blank it's not an exploit in their mind.

They said it's legal. That doesn't mean it's not exploiting a flaw in the maneuver dial system.

I can't think of a way to "Ban" the Castle/Fortress without making huge changes to the game.

It's easy. FFG quite literally just state that fortressing (intentional flying ships into each other over and over) is "abusing an infinite loop" and therefore against the tournament rules. Fortressing isn't really subjective: they're either locking their ships together so that they don't move or they aren't. If you do it a TO can order you to stop and disqualify you if you don't.

I actually think that it could be discouraged/outlawed without much impact on the game, by adding a simple line or two about stalling play, or unsportsmanlike conduct, and then leaving it up to the discretion of the individual TO whether it's being abused or not, but that's a whole other discussion.

The problem I think a lot of people have with the tactic, which I'm surprised nobody has brought up yet, isn't that it exploits the movement/collision rules in the game - it does, but as has been pointed out, there are numerous legitimate means of blocking, self-bumping, etc that get used all the time to good effect and nobody thinks twice.

The problem with Castling, which term I will use from now on because it's shorter and actually a word , is that it exploits the two-dimensional nature of movement in the game and, more importantly, the arbitrary boundaries of the play area.

Meaning, if you castle out in the middle of the board, nobody cares, because only turret ships can cover 360 degrees, and if they sit there not trying to utilize their fire arc advantage, they're sitting ducks to massed fire. If you castle down in the corner of the play area, however, you are surrounding yourself on 270 degrees by an impassible, impenetrable barrier. You can't be flanked, you can't be passed, and your guns only have to overlap to cover 90 degrees of open space.

That's not a dogfight; that is trench warfare, and that, I think, is why a lot of people feel the tactic is bad for the game. It's taking advantage of the fact that you're putting yourself up against a wall that completely protects you from 270 degrees of attack, which is instant death should your opponent cross it.

Their only viable counter is to charge into massed, emplaced fields of overlapping fire, then being forced to either break off or K-turn should they fail to shatter the castle, taking repeated turns of unanswerable fire as they re-position. Which, again, is less Star Wars and more Charge of the Light Brigade.

Castling

...is a chess move.

Castling

...is a chess move.

...and?

I'm takin' it back!

it is also a move that lets you turtle a piece in the corner....

The alternative is to accept that as long as a strategy is technically legal within the framework we've all explicitly agreed to--that is, as long as you're following the rules--you should be able to play whatever you want.

So this would include not allowing my opponent to use his turret upgrades, right? We both know they don't work under the rules. Making them work is an arbitrary, irresponsible solution which relies on an intent-based reading of the card... right? There's certainly nothing in print, so it seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to demand be followed.

It's certainly the technically legal way to play.

I'd argue that castling already being a word is a reason not to use it. Not unless your TIE advanced barrel rolls twice and then the Firespray jumps over it.

I'd argue that castling already being a word is a reason not to use it. Not unless your TIE advanced barrel rolls twice and then the Firespray jumps over it.

Overruled.

I'd argue that castling already being a word is a reason not to use it. Not unless your TIE advanced barrel rolls twice and then the Firespray jumps over it.

I'd love to see that.

In official tournaments FFG's rules determine what's legal. In unofficial tournaments what's acceptable is decided by the Tournament Organiser rather than the players. In casual what's acceptable is effectively an agreement between the two players: if you use a strategy the other player considers unacceptable they simply won't play you, and if you think they're being unreasonable you won't want to play them anyway.

So this would include not allowing my opponent to use his turret upgrades, right? We both know they don't work under the rules. Making them work is an arbitrary, irresponsible solution which relies on an intent-based reading of the card... right? There's certainly nothing in print, so it seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to demand be followed.

I don't get it.

How often does anyone see this? It happened one time out of around 700 games played. Is it really that much of an impact on the game?