I honestly don't have a problem with way the Vipers were flown. They are attack platforms, that's what they do.

Exploiting the stalemate is a strong angle though and I agree with the idea that it's not a sporting approach to the game.

Where that line is crossed with these ships strikes me as impossible to call fairly, they have to play to their strengths to do well. Intent is not a provable thing, I certainly don't envy the judges.

Either way, credit to @Crimsonwarlock for taking them so far, I can't imagine the tactic amounted to easy flying and autowins.

Not sure on if or no this was stalling or not i wont get into that part of this conversation. But, at least it was not fortressing that was well known with 3 Ups shuttles were in play back in 1.0.

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Can you pretend I’m a noob here (I really am here, no experience with fortressing) and explain these concepts and why it’s so much more efficient than normal flying and engagement?

Basically just have strong firepower, sit in a corner and wait for your opponent to either enter your arcs or lose final salvo. You can't be arc dodged if there's nowhere to dodge into.

It's not massively effective unless you have a Viper or Phantom that can play you until your next move is clear, then switch angle to catch you and even dodge your arc or mitigate your shots while they're at it.

The discussion here should give a basic idea of how the Vipers achieve this without actually contravening the anti-fortressing measures. Just like quad Phantoms, more or less, moving without approaching.

I don't see it as being that different to a beef block slow rolling across their base edge, waiting to turn in. They know, with certain archetypes, you have to engage earlier in order to get enough damage through. There is an inevitability there that makes it less exploiting a stalemate than ever so slightly gaming the clock. 9 times out of 10, you will have time to score the points if you play it right.

Clearly, slow playing a block is OK. But to me, this is the start of a pretty grey curve with the current system of scoring against a clock.

25 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Basically just have strong firepower, sit in a corner and wait for your opponent to either enter your arcs or lose final salvo. You can't be arc dodged if there's nowhere to dodge into.

It's not massively effective unless you have a Viper or Phantom that can play you until your next move is clear, then switch angle to catch you and even dodge your arc or mitigate your shots while they're at it.

The discussion here should give a basic idea of how the Vipers achieve this without actually contravening the anti-fortressing measures. Just like quad Phantoms, more or less, moving without approaching.

I don't see it as being that different to a beef block slow rolling across their base edge, waiting to turn in. They know, with certain archetypes, you have to engage earlier in order to get enough damage through. There is an inevitability there that makes it less exploiting a stalemate than ever so slightly gaming the clock. 9 times out of 10, you will have time to score the points if you play it right.

Clearly, slow playing a block is OK. But to me, this is the start of a pretty grey curve with the current system of scoring against a clock.

Ok, bear with me here for a minute cuz I really don't have any exp with this.

So as opposed to playing normally and killing things, the advantage to doing all of this stalling is to
1. somehow give yourself a position that is extremely difficult to act dodge (HOW?? WHERE??)
and to 2. take one thing off the board or more things off the board while your ships are hard to kill?

For 1. What kind of position really is it that you cannot arc dodge it? That's always been my general problem with fortressing. There are likely good places you can still dodge killboxes.

For 2. Why do you know for certain that in the last 15 minutes of the games you'll kill more things than they do?

3. Why is this all better value than simply dodging stuff like normal and playing and engaging like normal? How seriously advantageous can you really make it that they have approach you?

Anyone know where I can see videos? I have a hard time navigating streaming sites and paid content.

17 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Anyone know where I can see videos? I have a hard time navigating streaming sites and paid content.

Gold squadron hasn't posted their stuff to YouTube yet.

The FFG streams can be found on twitch. Search "FFGLIVE"

36 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Anyone know where I can see videos? I have a hard time navigating streaming sites and paid content.

Check out the games on GSP when go on YouTube, it'll answer your questions in this case. In other cases, with other ships, your points against it being particularly effective are on point.

4 hours ago, pheaver said:

Sorry, but I'm not playing this game with you. You are not arguing in good faith. Have a good day.

Hard disagree here. But, since Paul is rightfully considered to be one of the most respected voices in X-Wing and always has a reasonable take, I think it’s ok to just disagree on this little thing.

4 hours ago, pheaver said:

My interpretation is that judges aren’t against slow rolling play, they are against playing for Final Salvo, where they have a considerable advantage. I will pull out the old chestnut of not playing in the spirit of the game perhaps, if it was easy why isn’t everyone doing it though. I think it’s incredibly boring play, but players aren’t playing for the viewers pleasure.

As to the question of show the illegal play, it’s like any sport. The ref gives you a warning about something they consider illegal, it’s inconsequential whether you agree with their opinion or not. I guess if you did get DQ’d for it, take it up with FFG, but I doubt they would take your side. This is all hypothetical anyway.

Wow! When I started this thread I simply was pleased to see vipers place well. Never thought I’d stir all this up! If any of you now feel too icky to play your vipers, I will take the conversions off your hands. I won’t really putz around in the corner as I enjoy zipping around and shooting stuff.

My take on things...

I don't think its within the spirit of the game to employ these tactics but...

if you don't get warned about it by a judge then you are within the rules of the game to use delaying tactics.

4 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Wow! When I started this thread I simply was pleased to see vipers place well. Never thought I’d stir all this up!

This is a bit of an old contention. As far as I know, June’s SoCal Hyperspace Trial brought it to the attention of the community at large as we live-streamed the Top 16 matches. @Crimsonwarlock Brought the same list, and played a republic player, and they spent 115 minutes of a 120-minute finals match flying in circles on their board edge. As this isn’t fortressing as the rules define it but made for a feels-bad in the community, it either started or added to a growing movement against “stall-y lists” and “stall-y tactics.” Problem is, to combat those things you have to invent rules that aren’t in the official ruleset. While this is the right of every head judge, it creates even more contention, especially as that answer lies in arbitrary decision-making / gut feels by the head judge, and there be landmines in that direction. For a few months after that HST, folks were scrambling to “solve a problem,” and most answers were just awful. What most of the folks that have enough social clout to make these calls decided was “I call it when I see it,” which is horrendously arbitrary, and as Paul mentioned you can’t really outline a use-case for it.

What makes the Viper play even more difficult is it’s all too easy to call banking around an object or a ship as stalling for time because Vipers can be so good at it. No one really ever calls “stalling” on regenning aces, or a Soontir that buggers out to come back in on a better angle.

So just for clarification, consider an alternative situation - I like to fly seperatist and is a big fan of the new "Probe Droid" remote. In order to use that advantageously then depending on how I and my opponent setup, I may need to delay my engagement, inorder to let the probe droid fly ahead to let my ships get a lock well beyond normal range. This allows me, in subsequent rounds move in to engage with my ships double-modded or use that lock to deliver a proton-torp. I hope that "delay of engangement", is not considered slow-play or stalling?

It's a shame that Paul and Dee felt a need to actively hunt Mitch out to tell him these things at worlds after he had just got top 4.

Feels like bullying to be honest.

I watched the games on ffg live and at no point did I think that Mitch was 'stalling' or 'slow playing'

Top worlds cut tables and he smashed it. Well done @Crimsonwarlock .

On the notion that he would be warned round one of Swiss ... that's an epic level of pre-judging someone based on internet rage. If I was subjected to that bull, irrespective of who the Marshall was, I would be raising a ful land formal complaint about their behaviour towards me to FFG. Bullying should not be tolerated whether it's by a former world champion or just a random nerd on a power trip.

42 minutes ago, Sciencius said:

So just for clarification, consider an alternative situation - I like to fly seperatist and is a big fan of the new "Probe Droid" remote. In order to use that advantageously then depending on how I and my opponent setup, I may need to delay my engagement, inorder to let the probe droid fly ahead to let my ships get a lock well beyond normal range. This allows me, in subsequent rounds move in to engage with my ships double-modded or use that lock to deliver a proton-torp. I hope that "delay of engangement", is not considered slow-play or stalling?

I wouldn't have thought so.

Holding off for a turn to let the probes pick up locks for you and then closing to engage is not the same as refusing to engage at all; it's no different from a bunch of aces trying to engage on their terms (which in their case usually means from several sides simultaneously).

1 hour ago, Dreadai said:

It's a shame that Paul and Dee felt a need to actively hunt Mitch out to tell him these things at worlds after he had just got top 4.

Feels like bullying to be honest.

I watched the games on ffg live and at no point did I think that Mitch was 'stalling' or 'slow playing'

Top worlds cut tables and he smashed it. Well done @Crimsonwarlock .

On the notion that he would be warned round one of Swiss ... that's an epic level of pre-judging someone based on internet rage. If I was subjected to that bull, irrespective of who the Marshall was, I would be raising a ful land formal complaint about their behaviour towards me to FFG. Bullying should not be tolerated whether it's by a former world champion or just a random nerd on a power trip.

This is hardly bullying, the judges do not have to warn anyone about what they consider slow or stalling play. The fact that Paul would take a player aside to tell him that his style of play is considered slow or stalling is above and beyond what a judge has to do. If it was at an event where Paul was a Marshall he could just give him a warning off the bat, like everyone else would get for the same behaviour.

You would be free to raise a complaint I guess and I guess FFG would be free to ignore it. I find your reaction to this rather humorous.

To your comment - "On the notion that he would be warned round one of Swiss ... that's an epic level of pre-judging someone based on internet rage", Crimson played a HST final the same way, has played a lot of games with Vipers the same way. If an action is repeated, it is fair to assume that given similar circumstances they will repeat the same process again. For you to be subjected to that bull, you would have to show the same behaviours as Mitch and make the top cut flying the same way as Mitch.

10 minutes ago, Archangelspiv said:

This is hardly bullying, the judges do not have to warn anyone about what they consider slow or stalling play. The fact that Paul would take a player aside to tell him that his style of play is considered slow or stalling is above and beyond what a judge has to do. If it was at an event where Paul was a Marshall he could just give him a warning off the bat, like everyone else would get for the same behaviour.

You would be free to raise a complaint I guess and I guess FFG would be free to ignore it. I find your reaction to this rather humorous.

To your comment - "On the notion that he would be warned round one of Swiss ... that's an epic level of pre-judging someone based on internet rage", Crimson played a HST final the same way, has played a lot of games with Vipers the same way. If an action is repeated, it is fair to assume that given similar circumstances they will repeat the same process again. For you to be subjected to that bull, you would have to show the same behaviours as Mitch and make the top cut flying the same way as Mitch.

Taking someone aside at an event at which you are not a judge, but are a competitor and pressuring them while they are still playing seems pretty bad form.

Telling someone they would give them a warning at an event before they had been seen to exhibit a behaviour?

I don't think FFG OP would ignore a complaint of bullying, I hope they would investigate it. It's the kind of insidious crap that can force a friendly, good player away from the community and rot it from the inside out.

No-one took Ben Keller or Ryan Farmer to one side when they were Phantom fortressing to wins or top table spots ... why is Mitch suddenly a Pariah? Instead of rinsing him for a perceived behaviour, watch the games with an open mind. He moves his ships in reaction to other players - he has a plan for turn zero that allows him to move to a good spot to get the right engage.

Oli showed how to beat it, he knew what was coming, so formed a plan that he executed to win the game. Are people salty that they didn't manage to do the same? Seems like a top player, playing a top list well isn't something that the internet should be getting mad at.

Less still something that respected community members should decide gives them the right to go all Judge Dredd on him.

7 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

Taking someone aside at an event at which you are not a judge, but are a competitor and pressuring them while they are still playing seems pretty bad form.

Telling someone they would give them a warning at an event before they had been seen to exhibit a behaviour?

I don't think FFG OP would ignore a complaint of bullying, I hope they would investigate it. It's the kind of insidious crap that can force a friendly, good player away from the community and rot it from the inside out.

No-one took Ben Keller or Ryan Farmer to one side when they were Phantom fortressing to wins or top table spots ... why is Mitch suddenly a Pariah? Instead of rinsing him for a perceived behaviour, watch the games with an open mind. He moves his ships in reaction to other players - he has a plan for turn zero that allows him to move to a good spot to get the right engage.

Oli showed how to beat it, he knew what was coming, so formed a plan that he executed to win the game. Are people salty that they didn't manage to do the same? Seems like a top player, playing a top list well isn't something that the internet should be getting mad at.

Less still something that respected community members should decide gives them the right to go all Judge Dredd on him.

I think you are missing the point that no one has said he did anything wrong at worlds. What was said by Paul is that if he had done it at an event where he was Marshal at, he would have been spoken to. You have missed the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly most likely, is that why are there different rules for different events for the same game? As an Australian, why cant I go to a US event and expect the same rules, whether it's fortressing, stalling etc etc etc.

This is the biggest short coming IMO for X Wing, ohh and possible power creep too.

6 minutes ago, Archangelspiv said:

I think you are missing the point that no one has said he did anything wrong at worlds. What was said by Paul is that if he had done it at an event where he was Marshal at, he would have been spoken to. You have missed the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly most likely, is that why are there different rules for different events for the same game? As an Australian, why cant I go to a US event and expect the same rules, whether it's fortressing, stalling etc etc etc.

This is the biggest short coming IMO for X Wing, ohh and possible power creep too.

I agree - there should be clearly defined rules - and right now there are - the fact that a small number of players don't like them, shouldn't enable those players to impose their view on how the game should be played on other people.

I find it unfortunate that worlds has had this slight undercurrent against one player because of something that happened on the internet months before.

Oli said in a post top 8 interview on the x-wing junkies stream that (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Paul Heaver said he wants to speak to me, something about my next opponent and stalling' ... that sounds very much like people playing politics from a position of respectability trying to build support for their position.

As I said before, I watched the games on top 8 and top 4 and never at any point thought that there was stalling going on. Cagey play from both sides of the table. It's just looking like the 'Illuminati' have pre-judged how Mitch played and are not interested in counterpoints.

2 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I wouldn't have thought so.

Holding off for a turn to let the probes pick up locks for you and then closing to engage is not the same as refusing to engage at all; it's no different from a bunch of aces trying to engage on their terms (which in their case usually means from several sides simultaneously).

Thanks!

What is definitely bullying and not the finest moment for the X-Wing community is when people in chat said, “how he wasnt ‘playing X-Wing’ and FFG should penalize/ban/straight up kill him on stream [hyperbole]. Someone even brought morals into the mix.”

IMO we should respect the judges call. If @pheaver and @Mynock Delta rule it one way at their events, then we respect it. If @gekigangerv rules it the way he did at Worlds, then we should respect it. It is a DESIGN problem and the blame should not be on the player. We should respect these decisions and not resort to bullying.

12 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Anyone know where I can see videos? I have a hard time navigating streaming sites and paid content.

Don't know where a video is, but (I can't see if you got an answer to why) the reason people do it is to control the range on the initial engagement and in effect force a joust.

This and the saying about "if both sides are jousting, one is doing it wrong" means that dodgy lists get sucked into a joust and NPE they don't want and can't avoid.

I think it will always happen in a game with defined boundaries and I don't have an issue with it, in my books it is similar to flying along an edge.

9 minutes ago, BenDay said:

This and the saying about "if both sides are jousting, one is doing it wrong" means that dodgy lists get sucked into a joust and NPE they don't want and can't avoid.

Agreed. There's a distinction between trying to avoid ever engaging at all and trying to close in a way advantageous to you.

But a two-way headlong rush with no attempt to control the movement-to-contact always implies someone's doing it wrong.

I watched Mitch's last game on stream. He certainly wasn't guilty of anything in that game. If anything, he engaged quickly to throw off his opponent who was expecting a slow engage (it was a good gamble and probably the best time for it) and the dice went in Oli's favor (his red dice were killer). On the counterpoint, I do remember the infamous game where the two players flew around until almost the end, and that certainly feels like something that should be prevented.

Still, I think Mitch was playing within the rules this Worlds. If his list/strategy was so good, he wouldn't have been the only one playing it. Top players have proven on numerous occasions that they will happily fly the broken ship/list of the month if it means victory. You have to respect Mitch for sticking with this list he loves for soooooooo long. When I saw the monarch vipers were in the top 4, I had to smile. Has anyone stuck with a list for so long?

Ultimately, I think what makes X-wing tough for all new players is the game of chicken that all veteran players are so good at - making you fly around until they get the best engagement. There have been plenty of lists in 1.0 and 2.0 that profit off of cagey flying, regen, or even flying around the board in circles and making other poor players chase for the entire game while they get chipped to bits.

I think perhaps veteran players are frustrated because the game is so close to their "ideal" right now. The finals was really a display of two classic-type rebel and empire lists playing a fairly standard game that feels good.

I see two potential solutions:

1. Objectives that pilots can fly over for points, placed similarly to obstacles. (This would change the entire way the game is played.)

2. Make players fly the same list at top tables. No one will want this because everyone hates a mirror match. Or do something like let players pick from a few pre-built lists. But again, this takes all the fun and surprise of list building out of the game. (I think FFG tried to do something like this back when they had the tournament where you had to add certain pre-voted ships to your list for each faction. Again, it just changes the game so drastically.)