So serious question here: what do TOs do with this mess in the future? I've argued that pseudo-fortress was as bad as actually fortressing... but admittedly it's a product of game design and the win conditions. Are we all just waiting for FFG to notice there's a problem and hope they rightfully diagnose it this time?

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

So serious question here: what do TOs do with this mess in the future? I've argued that pseudo-fortress was as bad as actually fortressing... but admittedly it's a product of game design and the win conditions. Are we all just waiting for FFG to notice there's a problem and hope they rightfully diagnose it this time?

plenty of things.

They have lattitude to invoke the fortressing rule based on judgement. Aint no one gonna yell at the electric slide fortress and actual constant-bumping go away.

The only thing left after that is is the rebel 1-forward, but i dont think there's anything that *can* be done about that.

7 hours ago, KiraYamatoSF said:

That calculator...

Were you at Evansville this weekend by any chance?

That was our final! Congrats, btw.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

They have lattitude to invoke the fortressing rule based on judgement. Aint no one gonna yell at the electric slide fortress and actual constant-bumping go away.

I'd like to see a judge start calling it. Won't do anybody much good if I'm the first because none of our games are streamed, and none of our games matter enough even if they were. The more notable judges around here won't call it, but like to complain about it and how they are "handcuffed by the rules as written." It's quite frustrating, because, I agree there is latitude in the rules to call it as it is.

7 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

They have lattitude to invoke the fortressing rule based on judgement. Aint no one gonna yell at the electric slide fortress and actual constant-bumping go away.

So out of curiosity, what would you rule as a judge if you were called over to that game, say, 25 minutes in?

"If I come back in another 20 minutes and either of you is still in your deployment zone, I will DQ you"?

Just now, svelok said:

So out of curiosity, what would you rule as a judge if you were called over to that game, say, 25 minutes in?

"If I come back in another 20 minutes and either of you is still in your deployment zone, I will DQ you"?

you invoke the consequences of the fortress, and tell them they have to leave the range 1-starting area, or the board, generally.

It is an extension of the currently defined term, but pretty clearly in line with the issue of not advancing the game and board state. I'd like to see someone tell Marshal Heaver he's wrong.

******
Unsporting Conduct

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 (such as by slow play or by “fortressing,” as described on page 5), placing components with excessive force, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. The organizer, at their sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsporting conduct.

Fortressing

“Fortressing” is conduct violation relating to a game state in which one or both players are using the rules for overlapping ships to prevent the movement of their own ships. It is considered a form of stalling, as it seeks to create and exploit a stalemate. The act of fortressing can only be determined by a marshal. At the end of any Activation Phase, a player may request that a leader check their opponent’s ships for fortressing. If the leader confirms that the criteria are met, a marshal then makes the determination whether or not player is fortressing.

The criteria in the game state for fortressing are as follows:

• • Due to the maneuvers that a player has selected, all of that player’s ships have overlapped one another in such a manner that none have changed positions on the board for two or more consecutive rounds.
• • That player could have selected maneuvers that did not result in the same game state.

If the leader determines that these criteria are not met, they should inform the players and consider the matter resolved. If the leader confirms that the situation fits the above criteria, they should call for a marshal to deliver a final ruling. If the marshal determines that a player is trying to use fortressing to their advantage, they should inform the player of this fact and instruct that player to plot maneuvers that end the fortressing board state. If the player fails to do so, at the end of the next Activation Phase, all of their ships are destroyed and the game ends.

Alternately, if the marshal determines that a player has reached this state unintentionally, they should privately ensure the player is aware of maneuvers they can select to free their ships from the collision. If the player then fails to select to free their ships, at the end of the next Activation Phase, their opponent may again request the leader check for fortressing.

Players should not request a check for fortressing unless the above criteria are met, as repeatedly doing so could be considered unsporting conduct. [empasis added]

16 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

So serious question here: what do TOs do with this mess in the future? I've argued that pseudo-fortress was as bad as actually fortressing... but admittedly it's a product of game design and the win conditions. Are we all just waiting for FFG to notice there's a problem and hope they rightfully diagnose it this time?

policy I'm thinking putting in place for my HST next month:

if it looks like fortressing, I'm going to call it fortressing and give you a warning.

First warning: just a warning

Second Warning: if any game of yours ends 0-0, you lose

Third Warning: uh, not a warning any more. go home.

The right to not fight my opponent shall not be infringed.
The Engagement Phase is the 2nd least interesting phase in X-Wing.
I don't care if Twitch Chat has the attention span of a .
You can't take the sky from me.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

The right to not fight my opponent shall not be infringed.
The Engagement Phase is the 2nd least interesting phase in X-Wing.
I don't care if Twitch Chat has the attention span of a .
You can't take the sky from me.

Dee Yun, and his council of illuminati, cannot.

They are bound by arguments on what the meaning of "is" is.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

I do not understand the why of this game. At all.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

The right to not fight my opponent shall not be infringed.
The Engagement Phase is the 2nd least interesting phase in X-Wing.
I don't care if Twitch Chat has the attention span of a .
You can't take the sky from me.

End phase is more interesting than engagement phase because it means we're closer to the planning phase.

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

They are bound by arguments on what the meaning of "is" is.

Is this fortressing?

Just now, Boom Owl said:

Is this fortressing?

Depends on the boardstate.

You don't even need those cards - defenders can white 4k forever.

Turns out, I suspect we ALL know what fortressing is when we see it, so I find most of these conversations really silly and moot.

For examples, there's a difference between toilet-bowling and electric-sliding, and bumping all/some forever while others move.

We all know it.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

Depends on the boardstate.

You don't even need those cards - defenders can white 4k forever.

Turns out, I suspect we ALL know what fortressing is when we see it, so I find most of these conversations really silly and moot.

Problem is that you must explain this using concise words so it can't be abused or doesn't ruin the balance in a different way. Like in this game players engage only in the last few turns, but you can hardly call it fortressing.

1 minute ago, Pink_Viking said:

Problem is that you must explain this using concise words so it can't be abused or doesn't ruin the balance in a different way. Like in this game players engage only in the last few turns, but you can hardly call it fortressing.

Why would anyone think it's fortressing?

Like I said, I suspect we all can easily distinguish the difference on-table, in-game.

As can marshalls.

10 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

For examples, there's a difference between toilet-bowling and electric-sliding, and bumping all/some forever while others move.

We all know it.

I think any Fortressing ruling that goes beyond warning people for self bumping infinitely in a corner enters a grey area that I dont trust judges to operate in.
If my defender chooses to k-turn infinitely in the corner or my fang fighter repeatedly hard 1 barrel rolls in a corner thats my choice.
If my list while moving chooses not to engage my opponent at all for 70 minutes and I successfully accomplish that its impressive in its own right.
Collusion being a fully separate topic.

We all act like this is some nuke we're handing TOs/Marshals - we already live in that world.

Look at Canadian Nats the last few years - 3rd party dice, ad-hoc rulings later overturned, talon rolls, round 1 super byes for no-shows (after already re-pairing).

That's the secret - TOs and marshall's can, and sometimes do, do whatever they want - we have the abiltiy to ask for rulings and constructs in advance, and avoid tournaments where we disagree with the people running them.


Member the judges council when FFG center decided to 'absolutely not a future faq' ruling on Nym/Miranda? I do.

Turns out it was in the faq, too. But before it was, it was actually always a choice.




It's always a choice.

Also, money is made up and has no inherent value. it's all a construct we optionally buy into, and it works because we all buy into it.

I feel bad when @Brunas spends his precious reacts on my posts which really don't provide any value. He runs out sometimes, and other people deserve those likes.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a "I know it when I see it" approach to fortressing.

...But apparently doing nothing, wringing our hands and blaming FFG for all our problems is easier, so we're just going to do that.

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

We all act like this is some nuke we're handing TOs/Marshals - we already live in that world.

Look at Canadian Nats the last few years - 3rd party dice, ad-hoc rulings later overturned, talon rolls, round 1 super byes for no-shows (after already re-pairing).

That's the secret - TOs and marshall's can, and sometimes do, do whatever they want - we have the abiltiy to ask for rulings and constructs in advance, and avoid tournaments where we disagree with the people running them.


Member the judges council when FFG center decided to 'absolutely not a future faq' ruling on Nym/Miranda? I do.

Turns out it was in the faq, too. But before it was, it was actually always a choice.




It's always a choice.

UNKNOWABLE

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Also, money is made up and has no inherent value. it's all a construct we optionally buy into, and it works because we all buy into it.

next you'll be telling us that capitalism isn't inherent to human nature, and there are different economic structures we could live with.

Non sequitur #2:

My preferred list building style is based upon the following, in descending order of importance:

1. Preferred pilots
2. Theme
3. Alt arts owned
4. Special tokens owned
5. Is it good?

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a "I know it when I see it" approach to fortressing.

It feels as simple as if some stuff is self bumping for multiple turns a judge will probably say something.
Everything after that? Maybe they say "move it along" to the infinite K-turns. Really cant imagine its frequently an issue.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

It feels as simple as if some stuff is self bumping for multiple turns a judge will probably say something.
Everything after that? Maybe they say "move it along" to the infinite K-turns. Really cant imagine its frequently an issue.

The frequency does not seem to be the crux of the issue.