7 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

This is a particularly important point and one that makes the whole thing practically a non-issue.

Couldn't bring myself to watch much of it but, unless I'm mistaken, the ARC and Delta were bumped in the corner for loooong. If that's the case, and I don't know that it was, then that actually does contravene the fortressing 'rule'. But if both players and judges were happy with that then :shrug:

It does not contravene the fortressing rule. The torrents are moving around the board. The rule requires all your ships to intentionally not move to be considered fortressing.

Why couldn't they just go to the Loopin' Chewie again? Seems like we need to at least keep that option on the table.

23 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

This is a particularly important point and one that makes the whole thing practically a non-issue.

Couldn't bring myself to watch much of it but, unless I'm mistaken, the ARC and Delta were bumped in the corner for loooong. If that's the case, and I don't know that it was, then that actually does contravene the fortressing 'rule'. But if both players and judges were happy with that then :shrug:

I still don't understand why neither felt like they could bait their opponent into an even slightly compromising position, but I guess neither wanted to take one iota of risk . And this is just what happens in any game where both players decide to gamble absolutely nothing .

I could be wrong, I am replying on a train ride home from work which generally has not worked out well for me in the past... but I digress. Isn’t fortressing where 0 ships in a list do not move for 2 turns in a row, disregarding Leia U-Wing shenanigans?

If they made it where a ship cannot be in the same spot for 2 turns, again disregarding Leia shenanigans, help things?

47 minutes ago, Archangelspiv said:

If they made it where a ship cannot be in the same spot for 2 turns, again disregarding Leia shenanigans, help things?

Not really. There are quite a few cases where not moving is a legitimate and worthy play. Parking eBaffle Trick Zuckuss on a rock for multiple turns is currently one of my favourite things

I don't think anything needs to change as a result of this match. Unsportsmanlike conduct and current fortress rules seem to cover it and allow enough leeway for interpretation. If both players opt in to the time wasting, there's nothing unsporting to it.

Oop. Doubled.

It was, by all accounts an incredibly boring game. I didn't watch past the first 15-20 minutes after it became apparent that neither player was actually going to play any X-Wing.

That however is entirely down to my playstyle being more about attempting to engage my opponent. If both the players brought into this playstyle and no actual rules were contravened then there is nothing anyone can do. But as a final match it was a huge, tedious, disappointment.

I do agree with the other comments here that X-Wing isn't played for the benefit of spectators. However I would add that as streaming becomes more and more popular and gains a bigger reach to audiences both new and old FFG will probably start to take things like audience figures into consideration, after all if championship games become dull enough that no one wants to watch them then that will affect the reach of the game to potential new customers. If the game gains a reputation of being boring then people will start to think twice about getting involved.

Now I'm not saying that the game is boring and I'm not saying that this one example means the game is in immediate danger of collapsing, but it is worth remembering that this is the match that will be talked about, not all the other ones that were fun, but the one championship game where neither of the players seemed to want to play and just spent their time trying to avoid engaging.

3 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Not really. There are quite a few cases where not moving is a legitimate and worthy play. Parking eBaffle Trick Zuckuss on a rock for multiple turns is currently one of my favourite things

I don't think anything needs to change as a result of this match. Unsportsmanlike conduct and current fortress rules seem to cover it and allow enough leeway for interpretation. If both players opt in to the time wasting, there's nothing unsporting to it.

Not to mention that this is 4LOM's whole schtick.

I really wonder what was the experience or perceived threat that caused the addition of the current fortressing rule. Especially, as the lengthy rule passage does not and can not pertain to ”totally not fortressing”.

In wrestling or mixed martial arts the referee can order the contestants to break or stand up if there is no effort or progress. I really don’t see a way to implement anything similar to X-Wing. Already back in 2013 or 2014 we had threads where a player complained that Y-wings only circled around the board edge and did not turn into center to engage Interceptors, or vice versa. Though then nobody thought whether it would look boring to spectators.

Maybe a rule, that forced all ships to move out of the deployment zone within certain time or number of rounds, could be implemented. But it would require additional bookkeeping and most ships could rather easily select another place to ”not fortress”.

If I had to referee such a game, I might ask each player to write down how long they intend to continue ”not fortressing”. Then we set the game time to nearer of those values and continue from there. However, such an ad hoc ruling probably is not within the letter or spirit of the rules and would be hard to write into them.

1 hour ago, RikuM said:

I really wonder what was the experience or perceived threat that caused the addition of the current fortressing rule. Especially, as the lengthy rule passage does not and can not pertain to ”totally not fortressing”.

In wrestling or mixed martial arts the referee can order the contestants to break or stand up if there is no effort or progress. I really don’t see a way to implement anything similar to X-Wing. Already back in 2013 or 2014 we had threads where a player complained that Y-wings only circled around the board edge and did not turn into center to engage Interceptors, or vice versa. Though then nobody thought whether it would look boring to spectators.

Maybe a rule, that forced all ships to move out of the deployment zone within certain time or number of rounds, could be implemented. But it would require additional bookkeeping and most ships could rather easily select another place to ”not fortress”.

If I had to referee such a game, I might ask each player to write down how long they intend to continue ”not fortressing”. Then we set the game time to nearer of those values and continue from there. However, such an ad hoc ruling probably is not within the letter or spirit of the rules and would be hard to write into them.

What precipitated this rule (from a lack of any fortressing ruling), was worlds 2018 swiss.

While my game is notorious for getting Alex Davy himself to come over and tell us to set up (we had both agreed we would fortress, but could not immediately final salvo because they hated people agreeing to final salvo - Alex Davy informed us we must set up, even if we never move a ship).

Speaking with him later, to apologize and explain at least how we got to that scenario (since we did, in fact, perma-fortress and final salvo at time), he and I talked about it at more length, and he said it wasn't just us - after round 1, he decided to peruse the tables more thoroughly, and saw "a lot more" fortressing, and that bothered him.

It bothered him because the point of the game is to, ultimately, engage.

Thus, they made this attempt. However, as we noted to him, this allows for a lot of "definitely not fortressing, wink wink". Which for all we know, is why they noted the OTHER parts of the fortressing rule and unsportsmanlike conduct sections regarding drawing the game out for your benefit.

" It is considered a form of stalling, as it seeks to create and exploit a stalemate. " - Tournament regulations, Fortressing section.

7 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

What precipitated this rule (from a lack of any fortressing ruling), was worlds 2018 swiss.

While my game is notorious for getting Alex Davy himself to come over and tell us to set up (we had both agreed we would fortress, but could not immediately final salvo because they hated people agreeing to final salvo - Alex Davy informed us we must set up, even if we never move a ship).

Speaking with him later, to apologize and explain at least how we got to that scenario (since we did, in fact, perma-fortress and final salvo at time), he and I talked about it at more length, and he said it wasn't just us - after round 1, he decided to peruse the tables more thoroughly, and saw "a lot more" fortressing, and that bothered him.

It bothered him because the point of the game is to, ultimately, engage.

Thus, they made this attempt. However, as we noted to him, this allows for a lot of "definitely not fortressing, wink wink". Which for all we know, is why they noted the OTHER parts of the fortressing rule and unsportsmanlike conduct sections regarding drawing the game out for your benefit.

" It is considered a form of stalling, as it seeks to create and exploit a stalemate. " - Tournament regulations, Fortressing section.

So if your opponent sets up a favorable engagement on a different area of the board is it "Unsportsmanlike" to not enter his trap? The board is only so big, it takes 2 not to engage.

I'd I had been facing Jedi Aces would it be fair for the Marshall to force the game into final salvo (8v12 dice) because he didn't want to joust me in the rocks? The rules give him 2 hours to engage me. Getting your ships to engage at the correct time and location is a cornerstone of x wing.

2 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

So if your opponent sets up a favorable engagement on a different area of the board is it "Unsportsmanlike" to not enter his trap? The board is only so big, it takes 2 not to engage.

I'd I had been facing Jedi Aces would it be fair for the Marshall to force the game into final salvo (8v12 dice) because he didn't want to joust me in the rocks? The rules give him 2 hours to engage me. Getting your ships to engage at the correct time and location is a cornerstone of x wing.

Ok, h o s s. (it was bleeped out for some reason?)

Keep portraying it that way ad nauseum.

Like, I'm just noting the rules. The marshall let you AND your opponent do it, so you guys got it. Other marshall's may rule differently, but you'd know WAY beforehand, at the beginning of the tournament or earlier. Adapt accordingly.

did I miss a memo on "h o s s"? It's a relatively normal term in south.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=****

1*****

Just now, Crimsonwarlock said:

I'd I had been facing Jedi Aces would it be fair for the Marshall to force the game into final salvo (8v12 dice) because he didn't want to joust me in the rocks? The rules give him 2 hours to engage me. Getting your ships to engage at the correct time and location is a cornerstone of x wing.

I don't know why this jump from "both players are gonna fortress on their board edges" to "so this means my aces HAVE to joust???" keeps happening but it's not what anyone is talking about.

In the end, it's all an artefact of timed games anyway. X Wing isn't designed with a time limit in mind.

43 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Ok, h o s s. (it was bleeped out for some reason?)

Keep portraying it that way ad nauseum.

Like, I'm just noting the rules. The marshall let you AND your opponent do it, so you guys got it. Other marshall's may rule differently, but you'd know WAY beforehand, at the beginning of the tournament or earlier. Adapt accordingly.

The current rules don’t state anything that makes what we see in this video illegal. Both squads are moving. They just aren’t moving into an unfavorable position. There is nothing against that in the rules. You can’t say it’s unsporting when they’re both covering practically their entire board edge with movement to eventually engage. Based on rules as written there is nothing that gives a proper Marshall reason to disallow this play.

In this game it was about where you engage, on what terms, to meet win condition. That’s exactly what played out.

5 minutes ago, dsul413 said:

The current rules don’t state anything that makes what we see in this video illegal. Both squads are moving. They just aren’t moving into an unfavorable position. There is nothing against that in the rules. You can’t say it’s unsporting when they’re both covering practically their entire board edge with movement to eventually engage. Based on rules as written there is nothing that gives a proper Marshall reason to disallow this play.

In this game it was about where you engage, on what terms, to meet win condition. That’s exactly what played out.

I mean, ok.

It’s boring, but does that really matter? This isn’t common in today’s meta.

41 minutes ago, svelok said:

I don't know why this jump from "both players are gonna fortress on their board edges" to "so this means my aces HAVE to joust???" keeps happening but it's not what anyone is talking about.

Because people have developed strategies that involve flying in such a manner that your opponent's options are joust or go to salvo.

We have a Marshall that has stated that if he doesn't like the moves you've picked, he will end your game despite your moves being Legal, because he has seemed your flight path to be unsporting.

This literally creates a situation where if my opponent doesn't joust me, the Marshall will end the game. I feel that this is highlight's an opportunity where the game can change for the better rather than just have some judges deem certain strategies comprised of otherwise legal moves illegal.

Phantoms have have been playing this strategy for months and no one has cried that it was unsporting conduct.

My position is that within the current ruleset, if your opponent decides that they won't budge on the location of where the engagement is to happen then I'm allowed to select when the engagement happens.

1 minute ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

This literally creates a situation where if my opponent doesn't joust me, the Marshall will end the game. I feel that this is highlight's an opportunity where the game can change for the better rather than just have some judges deem certain strategies comprised of otherwise legal moves illegal.

That's literally not going to happen as you literally said it.

2 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

Phantoms have have been playing this strategy for months and no one has cried that it was unsporting conduct.

Yes, they have.

2 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

My position is that within the current ruleset, if your opponent decides that they won't budge on the location of where the engagement is to happen then I'm allowed to select when the engagement happens.

Position so noted.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

That's literally not going to happen as you literally said it.

Paul Heaver literally stated he would do this if it came up in an event he marshalled. (It's in the krayt megathread)

4 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Yes, they have.

I don't have good sources on this and it's an extreme position, I'll cede this point

1 hour ago, dsul413 said:

Based  on r  ules as written there is nothing that gives a prop  er Marshall reason to disallow this play.

That's where others, me included, disagree.

And based on @Tlfj200 's recollection of 2018s worlds, the developers seem to disagree, too. If the rules allow Marshalls to interpret and punish fortressing as a form of stalling, the there is something that gives a proper Marshall reason to disallow this play, don't you think?

Just now, Crimsonwarlock said:

Paul Heaver literally stated he would do this if it came up in an event he marshalled. (It's in the krayt megathread)

I'm aware of what he said. I will post it here, as well, in its entirety.

@pheaver :

If anyone's curious about "totally-not-fortressing" at NOVA, don't do that.

Unsporting Conduct: "This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time". The "such as..." parenthetical part is, read by me, a non-exhaustive list of common examples of what stalling a game for time is. If your game plan is "I'll just wait until the last 5 minutes of the game and engage and kill one ship", that's stalling a game for time. If your game plan is "I'll just wait until he tries to engage at the last 5 minutes of time and fly a ship off the board", that's just hilarious.

Basically, I expect players to at least start the game without planning on abusing the time mechanics. If y'all get into a scrum and you end up ahead, and now Soontir is racing around avoiding shots for the last 15 minutes, that's fine. If two players decide they want to just final salvo instead of playing a game, that's also fine.

If I was the marshall in this particular case, I'd tell the players in question to either skip ahead to final salvo, or make some effort to engage their opponent."

@Crimsonwarlock

So both of our lists are built around punishing an opponent that moves into unfavorable terrain. We both started the game planning on killing the other guy as he enters our side of the board.

Your response is to End the game because one or both of them isn't willing to make a stupid move? (Jousting a swarm is generally stupid). Were getting into some pretty subjective territory here.

I came up a plan to win within the rules of the game, **** I even told him I was gonna come engage him in last moments of the game after we recognized the other guys game plan. He had options to play against it ( it took about 2-3 turns to get to his corner of the board). Ryan could have tried rushing me to force an even engagement or fleeing with his list to keep me from scoring points .

All this said Ryan and I had a blast cracking wise and playing for 2 hours with plastic space ships. Does it matter how we flew?

@pheaver

...yes? To preface this, none of what I'm about to say is accusing you of any shady shenanigans. Your marshal was cool with it, so that's fine. I recognize this is a bit of an edge case.

I'm just saying, that in events that *I* marshal, I would warn the players in a similar situation that they are here to play the game, not play the clock. Planning your strategy to get only a single round of attacks in as time is called is "stalling a game for time", in my book.

We are definitely getting into subjective territory here. That's the job of the marshal in an event: to interpret the rules documents and make judgements."

*used Blue/ Red because of @Brunas

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's where others, me included, disagree.

And based on @Tlfj200 's recollection of 2018s worlds, the developers seem to disagree, too. If the rules allow Marshalls to interpret and punish fortressing as a form of stalling, the there is something that gives a proper Marshall reason to disallow this play, don't you think?

Basically. Like, we actually do know what the driving factor is/was. It isn't some great mystery written down on stone tablets for people to fight over.

17 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

Because people have developed strategies that involve flying in such a manner that your opponent's options are joust or go to salvo.

To put it as simply as possible:

I disagree.

I've been summoned!

Yeah, the short form is: no one at this event did anything wrong. Your marshal was cool with it, your opponent was cool with it, everything's cool.

I'm just saying, at events that *I* marshal (currently just the one), it would not be cool. I understand other people might not read the rules document the same way I do, since we're interpreting FFG's tea leaves, so I'm not blaming or armchair marshalling.

3 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

Speaking with [Alex Davy] later, to apologize and explain at least how we got to that scenario (since we did, in fact, perma-fortress and final salvo at time), he and I talked about it at more length, and he said it wasn't just us - after round 1, he decided to peruse the tables more thoroughly, and saw "a lot more" fortressing, and that bothered him.

It bothered him because the point of the game is to, ultimately, engage.

If only someone had observed, directly to Alex, three-plus years ago, that the game would devolve to this if it weren't addressed. (Narrator: "Someone had.")