I've never seen it played outside of a tournament either.

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

They said it's legal, and that they don't have an issue with people using it. Based on that line of thinking any form of blocking is exploiting the maneuver dial system.

If you do it a TO can order you to stop and disqualify you if you don't.

Which is exactly what I think they should do, if they decide that it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't get it.

If you look at how the rules work, the order of events in an attack and how turrets work. They don't actually work like they're supposed to.

I don't remember the exact issue, but it has to do with the order of picking a target and picking what weapon I think.

Buhalin wrote a whole article on it over on TC, but I think the big one was a timing issue:

Secondary Weapons can, and most do, change the range and/or firing arc restrictions for selecting a target. Remembering the basic principle that an ability can only affect the game while it is active, this creates a problem. If we select a target during Step 1, but then choose the weapon to use in Step 2, the targeting restrictions don’t come into effect until after the target is chosen. In effect, the targeting restrictions (or advantages) simply don’t function, allowing missiles to hit at any range and locking turrets into only selecting targets which are in the primary weapons arc.

- See more at: http://teamcovenant.com/buhallin/2013/06/05/fixing-secondary-weapons-part-i-the-problem/#sthash.23FubER5.dpuf

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.

Because of the timing of target selection vs. weapon selection, turret upgrades don't work as they're printed in the rules. You can attack with them, but their ability to select a target outside the arc doesn't kick in until after the target has been selected. Per the approach Robert is suggesting, I can (and should) be well within my competitive rights to point that out and demand that the rules be followed, since FFG hasn't fixed it no matter what they think of it.

Contra Vorpal's assertion that I don't see the problems with my position, I do. But I see the problems on the other side, too. X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset. Turrets are a perennial favorite of mine, so I used them as an example, but there are plenty of others. What if nobody had caught the issue with Lone Wolf? Competitiveness says my opponent missed it, and demanding the rules be followed is technically legal, so (barring the errata we got) Lone Wolf wouldn't function. Heck of a thing to spring on someone two turns into a tournament, but it's my responsibility to do so for the sake of competition, right?

They said it's legal, and that they don't have an issue with people using it. Based on that line of thinking any form of blocking is exploiting the maneuver dial system.

The vast majority of ships are designed to have to remain in motion, even the Lambda (which can't do two consecutive zero maneuvers unless you set up the build to do that). Blocking could indeed be argued as an exploit (and indeed used to be) were it not for the fact that FFG's embraced it and released cards that utilise it.

It happened one time out of around 700 games played.

Currently. Prior to Worlds fortressing didn't have much publicity and if anyone suggested doing it they'd rapidly be told it was a silly strategy that would get you killed. It wasn't something you'd expect to see in Worlds Final Elimination Rounds.

Now that it's very publically been in high level tournament play, there's a risk of proliferation. You know what humans are like when they see something they think works.

my responsibility to do so for the sake of competition

Responsibility what?

It's been explicitly stated as a legal tactic by FFG, so people can use it, but claiming it's someone's duty to use tactics they view as dirty, unsportsmanlike and detrimental to the game is insane.

X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset.

Myself I'd be more inclined to agree with you about that, if both Alex and Frank hadn't both said they're aware of it and don't see an issue with it on separate occasions. So it's not just "if it's legal" it's also "FFG themselves have said it's ok."

Blocking could indeed be argued as an exploit (and indeed used to be) were it not for the fact that FFG's embraced it and released cards that utilise it.

There's no difference in that and Fortress formations. FFG may not have embraced to the degree they have other forms of blocking, it but they have said quite clearly they don't have a problem with it either.

There is so much angst against a tactic which has negligible impact on the strategic meta. I'll wager you won't see a sudden explosion of lists whose synergies are based on Fortressing, because, while viable, it does not offer many applicable advantages. It also does not, in a significant way, detract from the game.

I wouldn't put it that way. It was more on the lines of saying the reason they didn't do anything to get rid of it as of GenCon is because it's uncommon and it sucks, ie: not worth the effort.

It also does not, in a significant way, detract from the game.

There we disagree. It bypasses one of the game's core mechanics from which its gameplay (and it's enjoyablity) is derived, it's in FFG's own words "a negative play experience" for the opponent, and also bear in mind X-wing is a thematic game: it's meant to represent starfighter dogfights. A bunch of ships colliding with each other and glueing together running their engines on max is as thematically jarring as it gets. If you view the game solely mechanically then I can see why fortressing wouldn't bother you nearly as much, but I'd hazard a guess the majority don't view the game solely mechanically. Look at all the attempts to salvage the TIE advanced: they're not just doing that for the intellectual challenge. If it were just some nameless meeple people really wouldn't care.

It's funny to watch so many people get upset about a strategy that they will almost never have to play against. The only reason this is a big deal right now is because some people here are making it one; nobody would have given a second thought about that Worlds match if we weren't overly disposed to beating dead horses on these forums. Why don't we wait until the format is actually broken before we start complaining, hmm?

X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset.

Myself I'd be more inclined to agree with you about that, if both Alex and Frank hadn't both said they're aware of it and don't see an issue with it on separate occasions. So it's not just "if it's legal" it's also "FFG themselves have said it's ok."

But according to most of the viewpoints here (including yours, based on what you said above) only what's in the rules matters. A random comment in a convention interview shouldn't have any weight if we're only going to go by the printed rules.

But according to KO's topic police we're also supposed to be talking about the general case, not specifics. So is it OK for me to demand that my opponent's turrets not function as turrets? Should you, as a "Just the rules" player, ever run a turret knowing it doesn't work? (Edit: And to be clear there, I'm not trying to start into a new specific, but using it as a sample case for the volume of rules loopholes which exist to be exploited in this game if we decide it's OK to do so).

It's funny to watch so many people get upset about a strategy that they will almost never have to play against. The only reason this is a big deal right now is because some people here are making it one; nobody would have given a second thought about that Worlds match if we weren't overly disposed to beating dead horses on these forums. Why don't we wait until the format is actually broken before we start complaining, hmm?

But then we'd have to go through it being a problem before it got killed.

You're right, it's probably a bud that'll never sprout. But even as a bud it's pretty **** ugly and I think X-wing's better off if FFG nips it anyway.

A random comment in a convention interview shouldn't have any weight if we're only going to go by the printed rules.

I know you know better than that. Because if that were true, then I'd also be in the camp of E-Mails don't count, which you know all too I'm not.

This "just the rules" is nothing more than a strawman.

X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset.

Myself I'd be more inclined to agree with you about that, if both Alex and Frank hadn't both said they're aware of it and don't see an issue with it on separate occasions. So it's not just "if it's legal" it's also "FFG themselves have said it's ok."

But according to most of the viewpoints here (including yours, based on what you said above) only what's in the rules matters. A random comment in a convention interview shouldn't have any weight if we're only going to go by the printed rules.

But according to KO's topic police we're also supposed to be talking about the general case, not specifics. So is it OK for me to demand that my opponent's turrets not function as turrets? Should you, as a "Just the rules" player, ever run a turret knowing it doesn't work? (Edit: And to be clear there, I'm not trying to start into a new specific, but using it as a sample case for the volume of rules loopholes which exist to be exploited in this game if we decide it's OK to do so).

That all depends on your interpretation of the rules, doesn't it? Thankfully there are people besides yourself capable of such feats.

It's funny to watch so many people get upset about a strategy that they will almost never have to play against. The only reason this is a big deal right now is because some people here are making it one; nobody would have given a second thought about that Worlds match if we weren't overly disposed to beating dead horses on these forums. Why don't we wait until the format is actually broken before we start complaining, hmm?

But then we'd have to go through it being a problem before it got killed.

You're right, it's probably a bud that'll never sprout. But even as a bud it's pretty **** ugly and I think X-wing's better off if FFG nips it anyway.

It's a bud that's been around for a good long while, and the only reason it's getting so much attention now is because we're making a big deal out of it, not because of its impact at Worlds.

Contra Vorpal's assertion that I don't see the problems with my position, I do. But I see the problems on the other side, too. X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset.

You know I agree with you on the silliness of the target selection and weapons selection rules. But!

First, we haven't seen people adopt strategies that rely on overly technical readings of the rules to cripple an opponent's squad by removing the Falcon's turret, nor have we seen people bringing Advanced Proton Torpedoes or Proton Rockets and claiming it's legal to use them against someone at Range 3. So arguing over whether they can be supported under the "Play to Win (and also Fly Casual)" mindset is moot at the moment.

Second, if we did see those strategies, there's a fairly solid response that doesn't rely on RAI: namely, that "Play to Win" in this case boils down to the principle that you should accept (i.e., avoid accusations of unsportsmanlike conduct with respect to) any strategy that's legal within the framework provided by the rules. But while "rules" can mean RAW or RAI, it's also important to consider RATAP (Rules As They're Actually Practiced); regardless of the technical fiddliness of the target-selection rules, they're applied (as far as I know) by every single player as if they function in the same way. That means a "strategy" of attacking a Falcon from behind and claiming it can't shoot back can be rejected as a violation of that mutually agreed-upon framework even if a lawyerly (or, rather, algorithmic) reading of the rulebook disagrees.

And finally, at least with respect to my position personally, I'm not being inconsistent at all: the target-selection rules are a legitimate problem, and strategies based on a technical understanding of them would definitely be an issue for the game if they appeared, so I've asked FFG (multiple times!) to fix it and am relying on them to take action.

X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset.

Myself I'd be more inclined to agree with you about that, if both Alex and Frank hadn't both said they're aware of it and don't see an issue with it on separate occasions. So it's not just "if it's legal" it's also "FFG themselves have said it's ok."

But according to most of the viewpoints here (including yours, based on what you said above) only what's in the rules matters. A random comment in a convention interview shouldn't have any weight if we're only going to go by the printed rules.

But according to KO's topic police we're also supposed to be talking about the general case, not specifics. So is it OK for me to demand that my opponent's turrets not function as turrets? Should you, as a "Just the rules" player, ever run a turret knowing it doesn't work? (Edit: And to be clear there, I'm not trying to start into a new specific, but using it as a sample case for the volume of rules loopholes which exist to be exploited in this game if we decide it's OK to do so).

I think before we start start banning Tactics, there's tons of weird rules that don't really make any sense that should be fixed first. I think FFG could spend their time there first.

I'll also say that just because something is allowed under the rules doesn't mean it should be. But that does mean we have no place trying to tar and feather someone for using them.

As soon as we try to start to enforce unwritten rules, and judge what is or isn't acceptable based on popular opinion, we've left the realm where the game can be played effectively by anyone outside our playgroup, because people from other groups are unlikely to have the same set of unwritten rules or opinions that mine do.

If something isn't codified in some official source, I have no right whatsoever to expect someone else to both be aware of it or abide by it. Expecting anything else is simply madness, because you are now demanding that people be mind readers.

It's a bud that's been around for a good long while, and the only reason it's getting so much attention now is because we're making a big deal out of it, not because of its impact at Worlds.

If your point is "why are we discussing this utterly minor issue?", you're here discussing it as much as anyone else.

First, we haven't seen people adopt strategies that rely on overly technical readings of the rules to cripple an opponent's squad by removing the Falcon's turret, nor have we seen people bringing Advanced Proton Torpedoes or Proton Rockets and claiming it's legal to use them against someone at Range 3. So arguing over whether they can be supported under the "Play to Win (and also Fly Casual)" mindset is moot at the moment.

If this is going to be the new standard for X-wing, you know it will come. But I'm not sure how "We haven't seen it yet" has anything to do with it. If the only yardstick we're to use is what FFG has actually made rules against, then at whatever point someone chooses to use it you'd consider them perfectly justified, right?

Second, if we did see those strategies, there's a fairly solid response that doesn't rely on RAI: namely, that "Play to Win" in this case boils down to the principle that you should accept (i.e., avoid accusations of unsportsmanlike conduct with respect to) any strategy that's legal within the framework provided by the rules. But while "rules" can mean RAW or RAI, it's also important to consider RATAP (Rules As They're Actually Practiced); regardless of the technical fiddliness of the target-selection rules, they're applied (as far as I know) by every single player as if they function in the same way. That means a "strategy" of attacking a Falcon from behind and claiming it can't shoot back can be rejected as a violation of that mutually agreed-upon framework even if a lawyerly (or, rather, algorithmic) reading of the rulebook disagrees.

It sounds a lot like you're suggesting that a mass assumption of how something works becomes binding in a competitive atmosphere. But isn't the entire point here that we shouldn't bow to such mass opinion?

And finally, at least with respect to my position personally, I'm not being inconsistent at all: the target-selection rules are a legitimate problem, and strategies based on a technical understanding of them would definitely be an issue for the game if they appeared, so I've asked FFG (multiple times!) to fix it and am relying on them to take action.

So then if someone were to pull that out in say the Top 16, and shut down his opponent's turrets, it would be acceptable for them to do so? And you'd defend their right to do so, and call them a good sportsman and competitor for doing so, since FFG hasn't fixed it yet?

It's a bud that's been around for a good long while, and the only reason it's getting so much attention now is because we're making a big deal out of it, not because of its impact at Worlds.

If your point is "why are we discussing this utterly minor issue?", you're here discussing it as much as anyone else.

I'm the only one allowed to have a double standard.

As soon as we try to start to enforce unwritten rules, and judge what is or isn't acceptable based on popular opinion, we've left the realm where the game can be played effectively by anyone outside our playgroup, because people from other groups are unlikely to have the same set of unwritten rules or opinions that mine do.

This is exactly the point I'm making with the turret issue. The fact that turrets work at all is unwritten. To the extent they do, it's based on popular opinion that they should.

This is exactly the point I'm making with the turret issue.

No not really. The turrets work because a basic understanding of the rules makes it clear how they should work. It's only when you start to parse the rules at a very high level do you see where it falls apart.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of just how tightly you hold to RAW.

And Fortressing being legal is based of Alex Davy explicitly saying so. In the case of ambiguity FFG are the ones that say what it means (usually by FAQ). They sometimes even use that ambiguity to change what things do without reprinting.

It's a bud that's been around for a good long while, and the only reason it's getting so much attention now is because we're making a big deal out of it, not because of its impact at Worlds.

If your point is "why are we discussing this utterly minor issue?", you're here discussing it as much as anyone else.

I'm the only one allowed to have a double standard.

Truly a god among mortals.