Can everyone sharpen my awareness on this topic, please?

I have been getting people on Vassal stating that the new floor rules prohibit my typical opening with RAC.

I’ll place my ships so that RAC does not move with a 1 forward, round 1. All my other ships move.

Round 2 RAC bumps again but still moves about half a one forward. I fly Duchess in front to slow the big guy down.

Mostly this is done against Jedi and they get mad cuz it doesn’t allow them to flank me and so they just slow roll on their side too. Until my Soontir bird dogs them into my Deci. 😜

Example 2, I will alternate a Lambda bump/0 move with an alternating defender 4K while Soontir flanks. Normally only 1x against most builds but again 2-3 times against aces/Jedi. Similar results and complaints.

My understanding is that this is legal. As long as ships are moving. And even if ships are not moving, it has to be 2x in a row to merit a judge being called. Am I wrong? And citation please.

Am I committing a party foul, even tho it’s legal? (Every regen Jedi list is a party foul! Jk 😜 )

Thanks, guys!

It's considered stalling, because you're actively avoiding engagement it could be construed as such.

It does not violated the tournament fortressing rules.

It could be considered to be stalling, per the floor rules.

11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It does not violated the tournament fortressing rules.

It could be considered to be stalling, per the floor rules.

What is stalling definition? Link?

15 minutes ago, MrScience said:

It's considered stalling, because you're actively avoiding engagement it could be construed as such.

Interesting. I’m flying slow towards the enemy. Is that considered avoiding engagement?

Floor rules are here, feel free to do your own legwork.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/e0/4f/e04f6d73-6e5e-4351-b067-0020f070365a/fantasy_flight_floor_rules.pdf

Just now, JBFancourt said:

Interesting. I’m flying slow towards the enemy. Is that considered avoiding engagement?

No. You will engage eventually.

Using the bumping mechanics to avoid moving at all, in a game where not moving is something very special and expensive, could be argued to be stalling, for exactly the reason that this is a game where things, mostly, move.

Personally, I probably wouldn't care, and as a judge I probably wouldn't care either, but honestly, if you're asking the question specifically to look for the line...

Quote

Slow play is an issue that arises when a player takes more time than necessary to perform one or more game actions . There can be a very fine line between slow play, which is unintentional, and stalling, which is a form of cheating

...

D. Stalling – Hard Warning and Game Loss or Disqualification Stalling occurs when a player intentionally plays slowly in order to exploit an advantage they could gain from the time limit. If a player is unintentionally playing slowly, this falls under the 3.6 Slow Play section.

Stalling is when you are intentionally playing slowly; taking too much time to set dials, decide on actions, etc. I don't see how self bumping (as long as the bumping ship isn't staying stationary, a-la fortressing) would be considered stalling, as long as you are setting dials and choosing actions reasonably quickly. There's nothing about avoiding engagement in the floor rules.

Yeah from what I’m seeing, thanks for the link guys, the issue is with running down the play clock through stalling.

This isn’t even close to what I’m doing. I’m just controlling 1st engagement.

That being said, it’s a game.... I’m not particularly trying the find the EXACT line. Just making sure I’m on the same page.

So assuming it’s not outright wrong, would anyone feel this would hurt their play experience?

Assuming you’re not playing Jedi, and I do the no move 1x? Then just sidle into the engagement using Dauntless for my action?

46 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

So assuming it’s not outright wrong, would anyone feel this would hurt their play experience?

Assuming you’re not playing Jedi, and I do the no move 1x? Then just sidle into the engagement using Dauntless for my action?

Honestly you're asking a tiny, tiny sample of the player base here.

Personally I have no issue with fortress starts. But then, I have no particular issue with fortressing at all, so

As a judge, it looks legal, as long as at least one of your ships is moving.
As a player, it can be seen in poor taste or just 'a **** move'. Really depends on the player.

Basically, while it maybe legal, you probably wont make friends doing it.

2 hours ago, Something Wicked said:

Stalling is when you are intentionally playing slowly; taking too much time to set dials, decide on actions, etc. I don't see how self bumping (as long as the bumping ship isn't staying stationary, a-la fortressing) would be considered stalling, as long as you are setting dials and choosing actions reasonably quickly. There's nothing about avoiding engagement in the floor rules.

I agree with this. I read the Floor Rules as referring to pace of play, how much time it takes to accomplish each turn, rather than what distance you move each turn.

However, I know that some number of players and judges do consider stalling-adjacent tactics to fit into unsporting conduct.

//

Circling back again, if I read the tournament regulations (separate from the general floor rules) for full fortressing correctly, after you've done the full-fortress twice, a judge can be requested to intervene, and can instruct you to set dials to break up the fortress on the 3rd turn. So full fortress can be done two rounds, but not three.

Given this context, two rounds of mostly-bumping one ship when the rest move shouldn't be considered unsporting, so long as you're moving on the 3rd turn.

I'll declare that any judge who DQs someone for that is a grade-A #$#$head. Doesn't mean some TO can't do it, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

10 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Circling back again, if I read the tournament regulations (separate from the general floor rules) for full fortressing correctly, after you've done the full-fortress twice, a judge can be requested to intervene, and can instruct you to set dials to break up the fortress on the 3rd turn. So full fortress can be done two rounds, but not three.

Full fortress has to involve all ships currently in play on a given side bumping into each other, though, among other tweaky things about how the rule is written. Stalling with two ships whilst a third flies isn't fortressing.

Nor is a whole list of vultures parking on rocks, as none of them bump.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Full fortress has to involve all ships currently in play on a given side bumping into each other, though, among other tweaky things about how the rule is written. Stalling with two ships whilst a third flies isn't fortressing.

Nor is a whole list of vultures parking on rocks, as none of them bump.

I personally don't stall/fortress because I consider it a cheap tactic, and I am glad that they have adjusted the rules on it to inhibit players ability to do such a thing.

The interesting thing about the rules(and I bring this up in reply to your post because of the third ship moving aspect) is that a ship only needs to be moving(not necessarily forward or backwards). This means 4King defenders blocking a Lambda on alternate turns is perfectly legal. Or using Cova with Leia to shift forward and backwards while the rest of your list hard ones into each other. These are instances of "legal fortressing" but would be considered unsporting to must people.

That said, FFG has given us the official rules and it is up to our excellent TOs/judges to make the rulings.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Full fortress has to involve all ships currently in play on a given side bumping into each other, though, among other tweaky things about how the rule is written. Stalling with two ships whilst a third flies isn't fortressing.

Nor is a whole list of vultures parking on rocks, as none of them bump.

I guess that what I mean is that full-fortress rules set forth a particular timeline. The 3rd round of it is expressly forbidden.

As such, it would be incredibly overreaching to call unsporting conduct for a semi-fortress starting position which lasts no longer than a legal fortress strategy.

Doing the semi-fortress for 4 or 5 rounds? Yeah, kind of an issue. But for two before moving on the 3rd? Should not be a problem.

Sadly I think this usually comes down to the Judge's perspective, but as was demonstrated in the response to a match a couple months ago which went 2 hours with no engagement until the last 4-5 minutes, a lot of people see that as stalling the game. The problem is that in that case, both players are stalling the game as neither one wanted to engage in an unfavorable position. If you decide to make something like that against the rules, then which player is supposed to concede the advantage and give their opponent an edge just to move the game along?

In the example at the top, you are moving your ship slowly so that your opponent has a more difficult time flanking you. Your opponent can try to avoid combat until your ship is far enough along that they can get a better position, and in that case they are avoiding combat just as much as you are for the same reason that you are, to have an advantage when combat begins.

1 hour ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Sadly I think this usually comes down to the Judge's perspective, but as was demonstrated in the response to a match a couple months ago which went 2 hours with no engagement until the last 4-5 minutes, a lot of people see that as stalling the game. The problem is that in that case, both players are stalling the game as neither one wanted to engage in an unfavorable position. If you decide to make something like that against the rules, then which player is supposed to concede the advantage and give their opponent an edge just to move the game along?

In the example at the top, you are moving your ship slowly so that your opponent has a more difficult time flanking you. Your opponent can try to avoid combat until your ship is far enough along that they can get a better position, and in that case they are avoiding combat just as much as you are for the same reason that you are, to have an advantage when combat begins.

This!!!

It amused me that the Anakin, Ric, Obi player cited me for stalling when he was doing 1 turns on his side of the mat.

He was waiting for RAC to commit to a lane so he could evade.

Let me say: I do not enjoy this style, typically never play this way, but you’re absolutely right on if it is consensually done (not one sided), I don’t think it’s illegal.

Let me also say: I don’t have any ill feelings to the other player either! This is just a niche circumstance.

I really liked @theBitterFig ‘s reasoning too. I think it’s gentlemanly to slow bump no more than 2x. Even IF it is technically legal. I honestly wish to have a fun game.

It’s very important with the space cow tho (less so RAC) to control speed/approach.

Thanks guys! Truly helpful. Even those that were pretty thumbs down on it. Thanks!

16 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

It amused me that the Anakin, Ric, Obi player cited me for stalling when he was doing 1 turns on his side of the mat.

That's one thing which has always irked me in these discussions. Aces do a lot of things to get an opponent to commit to a direction, and generally it's considered fine. Non-ace lists try to do something similar? O teh noes! Stalling!

19 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

That's one thing which has always irked me in these discussions. Aces do a lot of things to get an opponent to commit to a direction, and generally it's considered fine. Non-ace lists try to do something similar? O teh noes! Stalling!

Gotta make those aces shine! No one wants to play anakin just do have him die in 1 turn because he tried to take on 2 decimators!

Who even is chiraneau anyway? Who cares about a nameless guy. /s

I get around this rule by just activating Leia round 1 and doing 2 k-turns in a row on turns 1 and 2.

So long as at least one of your ships is moving each turn, it doesn't count as fortressing. You could have 4 ships in a stationary fortress in your corner and another ship doing 1-hards and barrel rolls and it wouldn't technically be fortressing. The same is true if you have ships that aren't moving because of game abilities such as white stop maneuvers or the landing struts nonsense, it's only when you use bumping to fortress that it counts, and again only when every ship in a list is not moving because of bumping.