Get ready for 51 point Starvipers if FFG sees this as a problem. Or Starvipers leaving Hyperspace.

The irony of this thread title is amazing.

6 minutes ago, Rytackle said:

That's it. It needs to be fixed, it needs to be addressed.

Agreed, Farmer.

But I'm very curious as to how OP will handle the Vipers.

Points jack would be.... unwieldy.

Official crack down on "fortressing" could be really tricky on this one.

At which maneuver or B.roll do they decide you are "delaying engagement"?

The first? The second?

I agree with Paul that as a TO, you can simply make a judgement call and move on, but on paper, it's messy.

6 minutes ago, svelok said:

The amount of bad faith in this thread is absurd.

Salt over human bias.

5 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

In case this is your first encounter with this question, Pheaver has stated numerous times (including this thread) that stalling to exploit a stalemate is the illegal action (this is also stated in the rules). All those other things happen after an advantage has been attained.

Quite condescending. You're wrong about the last sentence.

9 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Don't twist my words to support an unrelated argument.

I'm not. TO's can be biased. They've been for me and against me. Official rules mitigate that much better. I'd rather show up and play, not have to research what personal rulings each judge at each event has made.

1 minute ago, Redd9 said:

Quite condescending.

Not my intent. I don't know what you know, so I was giving background.

I'm finding this discussion interesting, as I'm currently flying the same build as Mitch.

I watched the Mitch/Duncan game, which is what I'll be referring to with the following comments.

If I'm not mistaken, Mitch turned into the center of the board, and there was shooting from both players, on turn 5.

I've watched streamed games and also played in games, involving aces, where the first engagement was much farther into the game than this one.

I guess I'm not sure what the expectations are as far as how and when players are "supposed" to engage.

If you're going to start dictating how or when players engage that's fine, but the rules need to be in place, and that players can reference. Because any of these kinds of restrictions will certainly affect how they build and fly their lists.

31 minutes ago, FranquesEnbiens said:

If I can explain why I am giving warning points based on the rules

Shouldn't the only way you are able to give warning points be with explanations based on the rules?

This was a duplicate post.

Well, if we look at the strict Fortress rules in the Tournament Regs ( https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/d1/88/d1884752-34e1-4ad6-a992-824f41694a03/x-wing_20_tournament_regulations_printer_friendly.pdf ), if I'm reading them right, two turns of self-bump formations are allowed, but the 3rd turn you have to break things up. It's a lot less clear what maneuvers are would "count as" breaking the mobile fortress, but it ought to be completely fine to dial in two rounds of "hover."

5 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Shouldn't the only way you are able to give warning points be with explanations based on the rules?

I am hoping that you just misunderstood my sentence, rather than cutting it there to take that part out of context. Let me explain.

You asked: "It is okay to DQ a tactic you don't like because you did it courteously?"

My entire sentence: "If I can explain why I am giving warning points based on the rules, then yes, and I would argue it's better to do that than play gotcha with warning points once an event has started."

In other words, I was answering your question as: "Yes, if I can explain why I am giving warning points based on the rules." The implied reverse being that if I can't explain it based on the rules, then no, it's not okay.

1 hour ago, Redd9 said:

Quite condescending. You're wrong about the last sentence.

Give this article a read before you call out that sentence for being wrong.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb4-g2BlnMfpP4V1IqVVRyUPe0RRzBAE9MBITRlmclM/edit?fbclid=IwAR2CoNrkaBMZbTH1YhWDtJVVbFz349IQFnpSwRWMdcqPA9DAiuZ2RjfXLmM

Paul's assertions are Win Cons that are shifting as the game moves forward.

4 Phantoms/Vipers win con is "Final Salvo, or if they come towards me I wreck them because they can't get a good flank"

Also, I didn't say anything about doing it "courteously" with that being an analogue for "nicely," meaning I wasn't commenting on how the message was delivered (i.e., saying it in a nice way makes it okay). Of course, I would try to approach it nicely rather than taking an adversarial attitude toward a player.

What I did say was that I viewed it as doing a courtesy, as in trying to do that player a favor.

1 hour ago, underling said:

I guess I'm not sure what the expectations are as far as how and when players are "supposed" to engage

A fortress plays out a couple possible ways in game:

1. You have enough red dice to build your own fort and wait.

2. You are able to close on their fort from enough angles that the fort builder has to choose which wall to “defend” and then you hope they choose wrong or you bail on the engage with what they chose. Either way your offering up a sacrifice to the fort gates mov taxes.

3. You engage them sooner rather than later rip the bad aid off and lose the joust but at minimum keep enough time on the clock to pick up the pieces. Engaging late can be a problem against most jousty things like tie swarm etc, its a bigger problem against forts. Most of the time you see a fortress engaging its simply because their opponent chose to engage the fort and the engage was correct for the fortress to particpate in.

4. Along the way sometimes lateral movement forts can fly circles around rocks and set up the fort somewhere else, to delay the engage and its timing to something that suites them better. Sometimes that can backfire and the fort builder can lose the first half pts on one of their ships late and lose the game. Either way it plays out the same way for the most part...wait final salvo, engage sacrifice, or circle dance half pt around the 30 min remaining mark.

U-Wings, Phantoms, Vultures, and many other ships/lists can do this. Just because a fort engages doesnt mean the fortressing itself didnt almost entirely dictate the terms of that engage. Its less problematic the less the fort is able to function as a turret ( which phantoms candy cane, uwings, and vipers all fundamentally are ), though forward arcs build good forts to they are just more specifically of the stall in place variety they dont typically circle rocks to.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

U-Wings, Phantoms, Vultures, and many other ships/lists can do this. Just because a fort engages doesnt meant the fortressing itself didnt almost entirely dictate the terms of that engage. Its less problematic the less the fort is able to function as a turret ( which phantoms candy cane, uwings, and vipers all fundamentally are ), though forward arcs build good forts to they are just more specifically of the stall in place variety they dont typically circle rocks to.

honestly its a bit sad that all the hate gets directed at the vipers.

I had a player tell me he had to change his game plan of sitting on the rocks waiting for me because i was the first to out salvo him

I heard stories from other players whose opponents said things like 'you're the first person to force me out of my edge of the board'

None of these games involved starvipers, the mechanic with vipers just has a more tape of it happening.

1 minute ago, jagsba said:

honestly its a bit sad that all the hate gets directed at the vipers.

I had a player tell me he had to change his game plan of sitting on the rocks waiting for me because i was the first to out salvo him

I heard stories from other players whose opponents said things like 'you're the first person to force me out of my edge of the board'

None of these games involved starvipers, the mechanic with vipers just has a more tape of it happening.

Yea agreed, i dont hate vipers, bendy rolls are super cool. Mostly its just the lateral backwards or rotating or all that and movement that enables mobile fortresses. This gets solved by marshals with rulebooks or the in game objectives not the ship design.

4 hours ago, Flyingbrick said:

Ok for those who wanted a video of one of Mitch's matches. Here is where he played Duncan. Let it speak for itself. It will start about the 2 min mark.

So, I watched that video up to their engagement at about 20mins, and if that is an example of his typical opening and what people are calling is "stalling" or being problematic, they are full of crap.

29 minutes ago, Rytackle said:

Give this article a read before you call out that sentence for being wrong.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb4-g2BlnMfpP4V1IqVVRyUPe0RRzBAE9MBITRlmclM/edit?fbclid=IwAR2CoNrkaBMZbTH1YhWDtJVVbFz349IQFnpSwRWMdcqPA9DAiuZ2RjfXLmM

Paul's assertions are Win Cons that are shifting as the game moves forward.

4 Phantoms/Vipers win con is "Final Salvo, or if they come towards me I wreck them because they can't get a good flank"

" 1. Launching probe droids and waiting a turn or two for them to get in position is fine. 2. Having Han and Jake run around to try to get someone to follow the rabbit is fine. 3. Running for time when you are ahead on points is fine."

" All those other things happen after an advantage has been attained. "

" That last sentence is wrong "

Unless having a jockeying for advantage is an advantage then my statement stands. I'll grant the third (I dislike that style of play). Final Salvo WC forces engagement, takes away the wincon of half pointing a weak ship then running the board edge for an hour. Hence why I asked why board running with a points lead, slow rolling with 10-16 final salvo and probes, and board running with dodgy bait is fine but slow rolling a blaster porcupine is not fine.

Paul is correct win cons change over time. Final Salvo (execution) forces the oppo to change their WC turn 0 (disruption). That is classic art of war, chose the engagement.

Personally I think Final Salvo needs to go (whats wrong with a draw). OR objective based play needs to hurry up and get here and be the competitive standard instead of death match. You should be able to disrupt or execute but not both at the same time at the beginning of the game.

All that being said, you're quoting a great resource and the right answer for what I think illuminates the problem but at the wrong quote . That felt kinda rude...

4 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

tag yourselves, I'm the anarkiddy on the bottom left

5 minutes ago, jagsba said:

tag yourselves, I'm the anarkiddy on the bottom left

I'd have to self-assess myself at about (-2, -2)

12 minutes ago, jagsba said:

tag yourselves, I'm the anarkiddy on the bottom left

-10, -10

18 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I'm 11 o'clock (for tournament purposes), 2 o'clock, 8 o'clock, 10 o'clock, and the center.

13 minutes ago, jagsba said:

tag yourselves, I'm the anarkiddy on the bottom left

yeah that's where I am too

1 minute ago, Ablazoned said:

I'm 11 o'clock (for tournament purposes), 2 o'clock, 8 o'clock, 10 o'clock, and the center.

True enlightened centrism

15 minutes ago, jagsba said:

tag yourselves, I'm the anarkiddy on the bottom left

1 minute ago, Kieransi said:

yeah that's where I am too

I agree