15 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

No, but you're falsely assuming "stalling" and "trying to get an advantage" are mutually exclusive. They are not. Virtually everyone who stalls is doing so for some sort of advantage, so trying to write of stalling as "oh, he's just trying to get a good engage" is not a valid argument because that's why everyone who finds stalling to be viable does it.

So we're back to only the joust being honorable? Unless you're flying the right kind of list in an approved of way. Then you still might be stalling but that would be an okay kind of stalling if it is an aces list or needs some other thing to happen before the honorable joust.

8 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

So we're back to only the joust being honorable? Unless you're flying the right kind of list in an approved of way. Then you still might be stalling but that would be an okay kind of stalling if it is an aces list or needs some other thing to happen before the honorable joust.

Yes, no tactic is ever stalling, ever. Everything that you can come up with a reason for, including outright cheating, is valid because you can demonstrate an advantage offered. See? I can arrive at stupid and off-the-wall conclusions too!

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

Yes, no tactic is ever stalling, ever. Everything that you can come up with a reason for, including outright cheating, is valid because you can demonstrate an advantage offered. See? I can arrive at stupid and off-the-wall conclusions too!

What I'm seeing is someone who wants to create the chance to judge some tactic they don't like as being against the rules. See you've said "trying to gain an advantage" can also be "stalling." That leaves an awful lot of leeway for one judge to say something is fine and another to DQ that same something. See we've got a whole bunch of folks in this thread who want to say this Viper list is stalling without being able to say exactly why it is stalling.

Can you show me in one of the streams where this viper list in trying to gain an advantage is also stalling? Where is the duplicity in the Viper list trying to gain an advantage in your point of fact being cheating?

A funny thing with this thread is what I've learned most or really understand now. It is how folks sound in points need adjusted threads or "nerf" threads sound to those who reply with, "It's fine. Git gud, Scrub." I understand now because this thread is really the first time ever I've wanted to say it myself with the irony of where I most want to direct it not being lost on me.

Just now, Frimmel said:

What I'm seeing is someone who wants to create the chance to judge some tactic they don't like as being against the rules. See you've said "trying to gain an advantage" can also be "stalling." That leaves an awful lot of leeway for one judge to say something is fine and another to DQ that same something. See we've got a whole bunch of folks in this thread who want to say this Viper list is stalling without being able to say exactly why it is stalling.

Can you show me in one of the streams where this viper list in trying to gain an advantage is also stalling? Where is the duplicity in the Viper list trying to gain an advantage in your point of fact being cheating?

A funny thing with this thread is what I've learned most or really understand now. It is how folks sound in points need adjusted threads or "nerf" threads sound to those who reply with, "It's fine. Git gud, Scrub." I understand now because this thread is really the first time ever I've wanted to say it myself with the irony of where I most want to direct it not being lost on me.

What I'm seeing is a man who tried to say that a tactic couldn't be Stalling because he was just trying to get an advantage and when I stated that those two aren't mutually exclusive and generally people who stall are always trying to get an advantage decided to start throwing up a straw man and pretending that I'm trying to get everyone I don't like DQed.

17 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

No, that solves nothing. Everyone is laser focused in on the ships being used as the reason the tactic is possible. This is wrong. With only minor adjustments to the application of the tactic, any ship with the ability to perform a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll can "stall" just as effectively.

I don't think so.

The difference is that the Starvipers and TIE Phantoms gain space while redirecting their guns to the attack vector of the opposing forces.

To arc-dodge effectively you need to close range but most ships move forward in order to mantain the formation and arcs towards enemy ships. That's not the case with Starvipers and Phantoms.

Add to that the stats. Nice offense and a very good defense in both, a dial with a fantastic mix of slow and fast maneuvers, linked (or free) actions, and do you think is correctly priced?

The chassis is only 5 points over a T-65. For me that's a bargain and I think needs an adjustment.

I recognize the ships are cool and it's not easy to measure the banks, but a spam of this is scary.

They have a minor edge against some Aces squads and can arc-dodge low initiative pilots. It should not be like that.

It's not the only game balance issue but Worlds showed this one very clear for me.

I think Mitchell is a fantastic player and I don't like to ban his lovely squad but maybe is better for the game if he plays with the Enforcers naked instead.

19 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

What I'm seeing is a man who tried to say that a tactic couldn't be Stalling because he was just trying to get an advantage and when I stated that those two aren't mutually exclusive and generally people who stall are always trying to get an advantage decided to start throwing up a straw man and pretending that I'm trying to get everyone I don't like DQed.

So is the Viper list stalling or not? If so where is it stalling?

How do we know the difference between "trying to gain an advantage fairly" and "trying to gain an advantage unfairly" in other cases similar to this Viper list? Since trying to gain an advantage does not negate something being stalling when does something become stalling or "exploiting a stalemate condition?"

What criteria will a judge use for warning a player that they need to start making decisions that player thinks are disadvantageous or lose by DQ anyway?

How do I know the difference between "not cheating" and "that is still cheating?" Because what I perceive in your posts (which may be different than what you mean) is, "Just because it isn't cheating doesn't mean it isn't cheating." I failed philosophy but I'm pretty sure that is a Kafka trap or at least one of its cousins.

Just now, Frimmel said:

So is the Viper list stalling or not? If so where is it stalling?

How do we know the difference between "trying to gain an advantage fairly" and "trying to gain an advantage unfairly" in other cases similar to this Viper list? Since trying to gain an advantage does not negate something being stalling when does something become stalling or "exploiting a stalemate condition?"

What criteria will a judge use for warning a player that they need to start making decisions that player thinks are disadvantageous or lose by DQ anyway?

How do I know the difference between "not cheating" and "that is still cheating?" Because what I perceive in your posts (which may be different than what you mean) is, "Just because it isn't cheating doesn't mean it isn't cheating." I failed philosophy but I'm pretty sure that is a Kafka trap or at least one of its cousins.

Look man, I just said that trying to gain an advantage doesn't make it not stalling and that generally all stalling involved trying to gain an advantage. You are really losing it here.

On 10/21/2019 at 3:25 PM, Crimsonwarlock said:

If you were judging the games I played on stream (there are 4, pick 1), where would the warning/penalty/DQ be issued?

I'm just waiting for an answer to this question from the first page of the thread. I've been irked by this whole thing for a while now. I'm just feeling particularly cantankerous these past two days. 😎

This thread reminds me so strongly of the Nantex thread. Same tone, same intractable positioning. "And neither the twain shall meet." I note that that other thread died, probably because the bugs haven't proven to be so very, very bad. Except in the hands of a few savants. The 'Viper is the same. It's good, but it's only "abusive" in the hands of a few meisters. "This, too, shall pass."

In the meantime, anyone who thinks the 'Viper is so very, very bad should put it on the table themselves, *more than once,* and see just how long it takes your local meta to figure out how to waste you. I've made my locals very good at countering Guri by playing her too often, to the point where I don't play her anymore.

5 minutes ago, Kleeg005 said:

I note that that other thread died

These threads get choked out when the amount of bad faith makes people want to stop posting, not because minds were changed.

I have to agree svelok. Up to a point this thread was interesting but like is typical when it devolves into is is more right than anyone else instead of either one side sees the point being made might have some merit or everyone agrees to simply disagrees. Then no one wants to read or participated in the debate on what ever the subject could be.

This list is probably the most enjoyable list that I've played over the years, so I also have been interested in this discussion.

And so far it's not been made clear to me what actually constitutes stalling, or when it is or is not "acceptable."

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the fact that vipers may very well delay an engagement, but once that engagement does start, they typically don't disengage.

At least the way I play them.

So I'm curious what everyone thinks about lists that are set up to engage, then disengage for several turns, before re-engaging?

Because a lot of aces lists typically do this, especially the re-gen lists. I guess I'm not seeing much difference between those lists and lists that delay for a few turns before engaging.

The end results are similar, in that you're denying your opponents several turns of not shooting.

2 minutes ago, underling said:

And so far it's not been made clear to me what actually constitutes stalling, or when it is or is not "acceptable."

And this is why this discussion is still going on. We've got one side going, tell us what actually constitutes stalling, or when it is or is not "acceptable" and the other arguing they know it when they see it and they're the ones making the claims of arguing in bad faith. The onus is on those saying the Viper list is stalling to explicate why and where and how the list is stalling and why some other tactic isn't and those folks won't do that while accusing the other side of acting in bad faith.

The closest I've seen to an answer is that the viper list is stalling because it has more time to jockey for position because it has a better chance to win a final salvo which still comes back to the question of how that is not within the rules.

A further trouble is there is an understandable reticence to tell the chief advocate of that stance, a former world champion, to quit whining and git gud. The additional trouble is many here have the restraint not to excoriate him for telling a player not to bring a list that didn't have any rulings against it at the world championship to his tournament without stating specifically where actionable infractions have been taken by the list.

Thus we have a twelve page thread full of folks who think it is about needing to "nerf" starvipers instead of clearly delineating what actually constitutes stalling. Excuse me, "exploiting a stalemate condition."

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

A further trouble is there is an understandable reticence to tell the chief advocate of that stance, a former world champion, to quit whining and git gud

You can say whatever you want to me. I honestly am only in this thread to say "check with your TO before you use Mitch's tactics, because some might not allow it." I don't bear Mitch any ill will, and if you ever see me in real life, I'd be happy to discuss exploiting stalemate conditions.

Online, with people I've never met and likely never will? Nope. It's not worth my time.

3 hours ago, Frimmel said:

I'm just waiting for an answer to this question from the first page of the thread. I've been irked by this whole thing for a while now. I'm just feeling particularly cantankerous these past two days. 😎

Let me give you an example why its not always easy to pinpoint it.

Someone brings cookies to work. I take a cookie. Nobody complains. I take a second cookie. Nobody complains. I take a third cookie. Nobody complains. I take a fourth cookie. Everyone calls me out. There is no significance to the fourth cookie, the fourth cookie is just as much cookie as the third or the fifth, and in another firm or another day it might have been the second cookie that was too much or the sixth. Its not the specific measure thats the problem, its the intention.

Theres no, this cookie is one cookie too much moment in his match, its the intention.

2 hours ago, pheaver said:

I honestly am only in this thread to say "check with your TO before you use Mitch's tactics, because some might not allow it."

I definitely appreciate the feedback, Paul.

Here are my minor concerns, as someone who plays this list.

First, I didn't really see any tactic used against Duncan, and certainly not close to what happened at the SoCal Hyperspace.

I saw both Mitch and Duncan shooting on turn 5 (assuming I counted correctly).

What am I supposed to okay in advance with my TO? Moving along the back or side edges for a few turns. I typically see that in the majority of games I play in or watch on stream.

Second, because of this notoriety, are opponents now going to automatically talk to their TO when they see this list? I realize... probably not.

But certainly it seems like the onus could now be on the viper player to not do anything that might remotely resemble stalling.

Even though most lists can do this to some degree.

Third, if it *is* ruled that stalling has occurred, are my moves for the next number of turns now dictated by the TO?

Currently there's nothing in the rules that as a player I can go to and reference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not expecting an epidemic of "viper hate" to sweep the country.

But this is a list I really enjoy playing, and even though I don't play in many tournaments, I want to try to stay ahead of any problems that might crop up.

3 hours ago, svelok said:

These threads get choked out when the amount of bad faith makes people want to stop posting, not because minds were changed.

Do you believe Socratic debate to be Bad Faith?

Too many like to claim "bad faith" and walk away when asked a question to defend their position.

10 minutes ago, underling said:

I definitely appreciate the feedback, Paul.

Here are my minor concerns, as someone who plays this list.

First, I didn't really see any tactic used against Duncan, and certainly not close to what happened at the SoCal Hyperspace.

I saw both Mitch and Duncan shooting on turn 5 (assuming I counted correctly).

What am I supposed to okay in advance with my TO? Moving along the back or side edges for a few turns. I typically see that in the majority of games I play in or watch on stream.

Second, because of this notoriety, are opponents now going to automatically talk to their TO when they see this list? I realize... probably not.

But certainly it seems like the onus could now be on the viper player to not do anything that might remotely resemble stalling.

Even though most lists can do this to some degree.

Third, if it *is* ruled that stalling has occurred, are my moves for the next number of turns now dictated by the TO?

Currently there's nothing in the rules that as a player I can go to and reference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not expecting an epidemic of "viper hate" to sweep the country.

But this is a list I really enjoy playing, and even though I don't play in many tournament, I want to try to stay ahead of any problems that might crop up.

I don't think you're going to get anywhere with those questions.

After all he isn't saying the list does something wrong just that you'd better check to make sure the list isn't going to be considered as doing something wrong. They won't draw the line it crossed because there aren't any cookies but they are sure it intends to take too many cookies. Remember they're just warning you some TOs might have a problem if it crosses the line and takes too many cookies even though there isn't a number of cookies that they can point too as too many. You don't want to be the guy who takes too many cookies do you? No, you don't. So just check. Because they're not saying there is a problem just there might be a problem. It won't be a problem till they tell you it's a problem. Just make sure it isn't a problem and it might not be a problem. They've got no problems with the guy who is the problem here and there is no reason for you to think you'll be a problem. Just check ahead of time to find out whether or not you might sorta be a problem.

3 hours ago, Flurpy said:

Let me give you an example why its not always easy to pinpoint it.

Someone brings cookies to work. I take a cookie. Nobody complains. I take a second cookie. Nobody complains. I take a third cookie. Nobody complains. I take a fourth cookie. Everyone calls me out. There is no significance to the fourth cookie, the fourth cookie is just as much cookie as the third or the fifth, and in another firm or another day it might have been the second cookie that was too much or the sixth. Its not the specific measure thats the problem, its the intention.

Theres no, this cookie is one cookie too much moment in his match, its the intention.

If I asked you how many cookies I can have, is that bad Faith?

This was just supposed to be a congratulatory thread to celebrate @Crimsonwarlock 's Worlds run. Congrats (again)!

I wish people internet talked like they'd real life talk.

30 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I wish people internet talked like they'd real life talk.

Same team

3 hours ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

If I asked you how many cookies I can have, is that bad Faith?

You may have exactly.... 1 and 6/9 cookies.

After that, all bets are off.

.....

But if no one told you how many cookies to eat, then by all means, eat the cookies.

EAT ALL OF THEM!!

Please. Nobody else is eating them.

13 hours ago, gennataos said:

I wish people internet talked like they'd real life talk.

You would prefer this conversation absent the restraints of the forum guidelines?

49 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

You would prefer this conversation absent the restraints of the forum guidelines?

I would prefer people talk like they would if they were in person. Like, I don't know if I know you...do I? My name is Mark Myers and I live in the St. Louis area. Have I met you? If I haven't, then I don't know your personality, I don't know if you're joking or not when you say something, etc. It's way easier for us to be jerks to each other if we've never met. I'd rather we not be jerks to each other. What if we act like jerks to each other, but we DO meet some day? Then we've already hammered a wedge between us before we even had the opportunity to possibly be friends.