2 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

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

Yes, and Mr. Heaver's refusal earlier to attempt making that distinction about the four starviper list does not shine a positive light on him. He knows exploiting a stalemate condition when he sees it! He can't tell you exactly what it is but he'll warn you and DQ you when he knows that's what you're doing!

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

He knows exploiting a stalemate condition when he sees it! He can't tell you exactly what it is but he'll warn you and DQ you when he knows that's what you're doing!

Well...yes? This is what judges and Marshalls have to do sometimes. They make judgement calls to the best to of their abilities. A lot of calls are explicit in the rules and straightforward; others, not so.

I mean, if you've ever met or talked to Pheaver, I'm sure you know he's an extremely reasonable human being. He wouldn't DQ anyone without giving many increasing warnings and explanations if you ask.

Listen. I understand that myself and other head judges that share my opinion are low in number (but growing!). I also understand that the players want to have a clear rule that they have to follow, and it's frustrating to not have one.

We've gone over the same arguments for months now, every time "not-fortressing" shows up in a stream. In the months preceding NOVA, I tried to point out far and wide that this tactic will not be acceptable in my event, so that no one would show up and be surprised. So, if I'm a bit curt now, I'm sorry, but repeating myself when I don't believe it will change someone's opinion doesn't seem like a good use of my time.

Again, I have nothing against Mr. Raab or any other player using this tactic, if their head judge allows it. If you are worried that your strategy might count as exploiting a stalemate, ask your head judge before the event. Most likely, it's fine. Launching probe droids and waiting a turn or two for them to get in position is fine. Having Han and Jake run around to try to get someone to follow the rabbit is fine. Running for time when you are ahead on points is fine.

As for shining a positive or negative light on me, I long ago stopped caring what people on the internet who I don't personally know think about me (thanks Roanoke!).

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.

9 minutes ago, pheaver said:

If you are worried that your strategy might count as exploiting a stalemate, ask your head judge before the event.

Borrowing your soapbox for a second - if you're worried about anything related to rules or floor rules, or whatever, ask the marshal/head judge ahead of time!

Not to point fingers at anyone in particular, but there were some very disappointed players at worlds that they couldn't use foresight during the engagement phase. It's very unfortunate to find that out in the middle of swiss of course, but any time you're operating on the fringe/grey areas of rules, or there's any confusion, just ask ahead of time!

For example, if before an event I'm running you reach out and ask if some crazy card rube goldberg machine works they way you're hoping, there's time to investigate and make sure everything works as intended. If the question comes up round 2 of swiss, it's more likely that you get a conservative judgement. Not that I (or any other TO I know) enjoys telling people no of course, but it's much more straightforward to handle these situations ahead of time.

For example, a few weeks before worlds I reached out to the worlds head judge with some questions on what would be considered stalling for a squad I was considering to make sure everything there was OK. Sounds like it would have been fine, though I didn't end up doing it. Your TOs are human, and in every case I've ever seen are just trying to create a fair/fun environment! Reaching out beforehand can save a huge headache for everyone later.

3 hours ago, Dreadai said:

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.

I certainly hope this isn't true. A few of my top cut Matches felt a LOT more hostile than any game should ever feel.

That said, my match with with Oli was great. He made sure I felt welcome at the table and it meant a lot to me.

When it comes down to it, I think the "stalling/slow play" line ought to be confirmed to tempo, rather than tactics.

I think a decision to go after generic squad which avoid engagement and not Han/Jake avoiding engagement reeks.

6 hours 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

It appears that instead of engaging in proxies via declarations against game mechanics or hiding behind anonymous screen names, Paul and Dee provided direct feedback to 4 vipers. Is there any more honest and transparent way to engage in a discussion?

4 hours 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.

Woah there dog, I never said what I was doing was acceptable. I NEVER said that Fort Farmer was the correct way to play the game. I was exploiting a tactic to mainly prove a point about how stupid it is, and it just happened to be good enough to win me a system open*

We mention this in an interview in our most recent episode, but FFG solved the 4 Phantom problem by just nuking it out of playability. 4 Starvipers operates in the EXACT same way as 4 Phantoms did. I know all the things Mitch is saying because I employed the same tactics. If a judge had said to me "Hey, you need to come out of your corner" then I would've probably stalled 2 turns (like a lot of lists do) and then moved forward with the engagement.

Here's the main issue with these lists, and with Mitch's argument, you can't just look at a game and be like "Oh when did I go wrong here", because it's all just hindsight bias. Let's say I opened with a One Bank, then another One Bank BR, then a 1 Straight BR with the Vipers. By then my opponent may have taken a bad engagement and I destroy him. It's hard to say anything was done wrong there, but the point is if my opponent DIDN'T take a bad engage, it's too easy for me to just opt out and stay on one side of the board protected by the board edge.

Also, all you guys saying Dee is a "Joust Me Zombie" are super ignorant. Aces get super wrecked by 4 vipers and 4 Phantoms too. They have way lower salvo dice and NEED to engage at some point. The only ship that usually has a shot in these types of matchups is Whisper due to how she also moves impossibly. If anything you guys supporting this strategy are the "Zombies" because it's the one forcing a joust, because it's staying in a place where it's covered by two board edges.

I really wish people would play with or against these types of lists before making outlandish accusations on the internet.

Also I really like Mitch and think he's a good dude. He's doing what he's currently allowed to do because FFG isn't showing any Teeth. Just like I took 4 Phantoms, I'm not going to hold his choices against him and neither should the community. What they should do is demand from FFG a better clarification of what "exploiting a stalemate is" and judges need the guts to call people out on it.

Is there an ethical difference in exploiting a maneuverable ship, dancing still, and abusing the bump to no move because plastic ships don't stack?

20 minutes ago, Rytackle said:

Woah there dog, I never said what I was doing was acceptable. I NEVER said that Fort Farmer was the correct way to play the game. I was exploiting a tactic to mainly prove a point about how stupid it is, and it just happened to be good enough to win me a system open*

We mention this in an interview in our most recent episode, but FFG solved the 4 Phantom problem by just nuking it out of playability. 4 Starvipers operates in the EXACT same way as 4 Phantoms did. I know all the things Mitch is saying because I employed the same tactics. If a judge had said to me "Hey, you need to come out of your corner" then I would've probably stalled 2 turns (like a lot of lists do) and then moved forward with the engagement.

Here's the main issue with these lists, and with Mitch's argument, you can't just look at a game and be like "Oh when did I go wrong here", because it's all just hindsight bias. Let's say I opened with a One Bank, then another One Bank BR, then a 1 Straight BR with the Vipers. By then my opponent may have taken a bad engagement and I destroy him. It's hard to say anything was done wrong there, but the point is if my opponent DIDN'T take a bad engage, it's too easy for me to just opt out and stay on one side of the board protected by the board edge.

Also, all you guys saying Dee is a "Joust Me Zombie" are super ignorant. Aces get super wrecked by 4 vipers and 4 Phantoms too. They have way lower salvo dice and NEED to engage at some point. The only ship that usually has a shot in these types of matchups is Whisper due to how she also moves impossibly. If anything you guys supporting this strategy are the "Zombies" because it's the one forcing a joust, because it's staying in a place where it's covered by two board edges.

I really wish people would play with or against these types of lists before making outlandish accusations on the internet.

Also I really like Mitch and think he's a good dude. He's doing what he's currently allowed to do because FFG isn't showing any Teeth. Just like I took 4 Phantoms, I'm not going to hold his choices against him and neither should the community. What they should do is demand from FFG a better clarification of what "exploiting a stalemate is" and judges need the guts to call people out on it.

Very well written.

If anyone cares many years ago (1st ed) I posted rules on squirting instead of bumping on this forum. It would have fixed this issue

23 minutes ago, Rytackle said:

I never said what I was doing was acceptable. I NEVER said that Fort Farmer was the correct way to play the game. I was exploiting a tactic to mainly prove a point about how stupid it is, and it just happened to be good enough to win me a system open*

sure - but the internet opprobrium and the bullying Mitch both online and in person has suffered is not acceptable. This is my point pure and simple.

1 minute ago, Dreadai said:

sure - but the internet opprobrium and the bullying Mitch both online and in person has suffered is not acceptable. This is my point pure and simple.

I guess.

However, where is the line between noting you disagree with it, and bullying?

Like, Dee and Paul, both Marshals of national-level events (whatever they're called now), are noting they would use the warning system under the stalling rules, and mitch simply has videos as illustration. Like, it's sort of a jump to think they're twisting their rules to specifically bully him personally out of events. Mitch wasn't even going to attend NOVA?

Let's say you, as a judge, can identify a player who is known to use a tactic that you don't allow at your event, based on how you apply the floor rules. What's more courteous: taking that player aside ahead of time to explain that the tactic in question will earn them warning points during the event, so they know what to expect beforehand, or not saying anything and starting to give warning points once they begin playing and using that tactic?

To me, taking the player aside sounds like a respectful courtesy rather than an attempt to box them out of an event. I'm genuinely curious if that feels like bullying to some players, and what about it crosses that line.

What a dumpster fire of a thread.

At Worlds: Having a wonderful time. Meeting cool people, everyone is nice and chill and just happy to be there. Amazing community.

At the FFG Forums: People making bad faith arguments, especially about things they weren't there for.

Why do I even come here? The in-person X-wing community is 1000x better than the online Xwing community.

2 minutes ago, FranquesEnbiens said:

Let's say you, as a judge, can identify a player who is known to use a tactic that you don't allow at your event, based on how you apply the floor rules. What's more courteous: taking that player aside ahead of time to explain that the tactic in question will earn them warning points during the event, so they know what to expect beforehand, or not saying anything and starting to give warning points once they begin playing and using that tactic?

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

15 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I guess.

However, where is the line between noting you disagree with it, and bullying?

Like, Dee and Paul, both Marshals of national-level events (whatever they're called now), are noting they would use the warning system under the stalling rules, and mitch simply has videos as illustration. Like, it's sort of a jump to think they're twisting their rules to specifically bully him personally out of events. Mitch wasn't even going to attend NOVA?

Why do it at worlds where he is still playing? Just trying to apply pressure? Just seems odd.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

Your TOs are human , and in every case I've ever seen are just trying to create a fair/fun environment! Reaching out beforehand can save a huge headache for everyone later.

This is there needs to be hard rules, or official definitions at the very least.

1 hour ago, pheaver said:

Launching probe droids and waiting a turn or two for them to get in position is fine.

Having Han and Jake run around to try to get someone to follow the rabbit is fine.

Running for time when you are ahead on points is fine.

So is stalling for advantage fine or not fine?

44 minutes ago, Rytackle said:

Woah there dog, I never said what I was doing was acceptable. I NEVER said that Fort Farmer was an acceptable way to play the game. I was exploiting a tactic to mainly prove a point about how stupid it is, and it just happened to be good enough to win be a system open*

Quite the victim.

5 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

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

Only the joust is honorable.

7 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

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

There are such a thing as warnings.

The amount of bad faith in this thread is absurd.

Just now, Redd9 said:

This is why people want hard rules, or official definitions at the very least.

While I have very strong feelings on this subject, I'm staying out of it. Don't twist my words to support an unrelated argument.

Just now, Redd9 said:

So is stalling for advantage fine or not fine?

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.

1 minute ago, Redd9 said:

Quite the victim.

You are clearly missing the point of what I was talking about. I'm not holding a banner up defending the tactic as some high skill, position based big brain grand technique. It all comes down to "If you don't come at me you lose, I'll ensure there's no good way to come at me because I control two board edges."

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

17 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

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

Letting a player know that they will receive warning points is not an automatic disqualification. At that point, it's on the player to decide if they will continue to pursue that course of action.

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. My goal is to get out in front of anything that I think is a violation of the rules, not to target things that I don't personally like. I try to make rulings like that based on the best I can do at reading and understanding the rules. If you challenge me on it, and I can't justify it based on the rules, then I won't rule it that way. Basically, I am never going to hamstring myself by having to back up a ruling with a "because I said so" justification. Do I get them all right? Certainly not. But if I get them wrong, I try to do better next time.

I can't make claims for how any other judge runs their events, but I try to do my best to be fair to everyone and make sure the players are as informed as possible ahead of the event. I spend several weeks preparing for Hyperspace Trials to try to ensure all of that, as well as thinking about how to best help players have a good time.

When I am running an event, I make a document for players to reference that I post several weeks in advance so they can know how I will rule on things. I also give them several avenues to contact me if they have any questions about cards, rules interactions, or how I will rule on things. I research and give an answer before the event starts and add it to my document.

If a player thinks I am targeting something they think is valid, or targeting them specifically, then I hope I can explain why I am not and how I am applying the rules as I see them. As far as my intent behind that, well, I just have to hope I have enough goodwill and can explain myself eloquently enough that players trust me. If they can't, then I will feel bad, but also rest assured knowing that I either did the best I could, acted as fairly as I could, or will apologize to them if I made a genuine error and try to do better next time.