3 hours ago, Bucknife said:

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.

We have judges especially for situations when things are unclear, humans are employed to use their judgement when a flow chart will not be able to adequately resolve the situation at hand.

31 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

My face : -4,10 (my soul: 7,5)

Well, we don't need 3.0

More like 2.1: rise of the ****** gameplay objectives

4 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Well, we don't need 3.0

More like 2.1: rise of the ****** gameplay objectives

That people think adding objectives would change anything other than the game's veneer is funny.

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

That people think adding objectives would change anything other than the game's veneer is funny.

Have you not played other games?

Objectives can change a lot!

Only issue is whether or not it can be reasonably implemented at a game scale below epic

Armada makes it plausible by having objectives affect points rather than having them just outright winning the game, which is more necessary in games with too many dang models to count.

So what would the fix for this be? An addition to the Fortressing requirements that would include spending 3 consecutive turns within range 2 of both board edges?

3 hours ago, underling said:

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.

To be fair to the "Butterflying is Bad" community, they're looking more at the clock than the round counter. Some games with 16 ships on the board barely get to round 5 before the clock runs down. play a game with four ships on the table, and round 5 takes less than 10 minutes to get to. One of the hard facts about Butterflying is that—regardless of your feelings on its ethics, viability, or legality—it can take a bit of time to maneuver four ships with wonky barrel rolls with precision. Over the course of the game, this time adds up, and creates the image of the player intentionally stalling. To compound this, it's generally difficult to tell in the first round or two whether a player is exploiting this, or if it's just the way the game is going. Some judges are willing to make the call early. Others aren't.

7 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

So what would the fix for this be? An addition to the Fortressing requirements that would include spending 3 consecutive turns within range 2 of both board edges?

Objectives

Force engagement around the middle by putting **** there that's of any interest to both players

21 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Objectives

Force engagement around the middle by putting **** there that's of any interest to both players

As things stand, you are the objective.

2 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

As things stand, you are the objective.

Hah

As if I could be of any interest to anyone

...

All it would take to clear out any eternal stalling tactics would be to mark the most central obstacle and award the player who first moved within range 2 of it a single MOV point which is only awarded if no other points are scored.

As of now, the questions that need to be asked of someone who is potentially stalling are these-

1- Do you have a predetermined set or sets of maneuvers you implement which enables your squad to maintain an advantageous position in a subsection of the play area that places the burden of engagement solely on your opponent and keeps your squad removed from the non-static section of the player board (aka the obstacles)?

2- is your squad built with the intention of a final salvo advantage to force your opponent to approach you while you are able to maintain your advantageous positioning?

If the answer to both is yes, then it can understandably be judged as stalling by those who believe stalling to be an issue worth policing.

But... probably not gonna get a straight answer on that if you ask the player sadly. 😰

1 minute ago, Kdubb said:

All it would take to clear out any eternal stalling tactics would be to mark the most central obstacle and award the player who first moved within range 2 of it a single MOV point which is only awarded if no other points are scored.

As of now, the questions that need to be asked of someone who is potentially stalling are these-

1- Do you have a predetermined set or sets of maneuvers you implement which enables your squad to maintain an advantageous position in a subsection of the play area that places the burden of engagement solely on your opponent and keeps your squad removed from the non-static section of the player board (aka the obstacles)?

2- is your squad built with the intention of a final salvo advantage to force your opponent to approach you while you are able to maintain your advantageous positioning?

If the answer to both is yes, then it can understandably be judged as stalling by those who believe stalling to be an issue worth policing.

But... probably not gonna get a straight answer on that if you ask the player sadly. 😰

Better question is what their win condition is, and how what they are currently doing furthers that win condition. One or more of those answers will further the stalling argument.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

1- Do you have a predetermined set or sets of maneuvers you implement which enables your squad to maintain an advantageous position in a subsection of the play area that places the burden of engagement solely on your opponent and keeps your squad removed from the non-static section of the player board (aka the obstacles)?

Just about every ship with a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll fits this...

4 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

2- is your squad built with the intention of a final salvo advantage to force your opponent to approach you while you are able to maintain your advantageous positioning?

5+ ships with 2 reds vs Ace lists, 6+ with 2 reds (4+ 3 reds as well) vs most everything else can be built with this intent.

5 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Just about every ship with a 1 or 2 turn + barrel roll fits this...

It only fits it if they are doing it. a bunch of X-wing going forward does not meet that criteria

Well, internet, people just continually blurt things out. That's the difference between this place and real places where things actually happen.

That's fine. Its fun and involving. But Just gloss over the blather here and some fantastic posts have been written.

I'm gonna blurt some stuff. Advise gloss.

Quad Phantoms. Stalemate play... maybe. Points nuked. Fine. Sorted. Ship is still good. It's all fine.

Bumping everyone without even moving for ages. Clear stalemate play. Ruled upon. Sorted. Boring too. Why bother. Fine.

Vipers. Stalemate play.... maybe. Buuuut.... if you point nuke it, do you ruin the ship?

Can an Enforcer do it?

Why hasn't this list been picked up and used for this purpose as much as Phantoms were? Could it be?

Why has hardly anybody done well with stalemate play since Phantoms? Or have they? I don't know, I don't check. Do you?

What else can do it and be widely successful? Is that thing also a problem?

Because if it really is just Mitch with Vipers, then fair play to him, this thing is under control. He is the Anakin Skywalker of it and cannot be stopped.

Or is everyone in X Wing but Mitch a really nice guy and would never concoct a plan so horrible? Mr Palpatine over there. Would still make him cool tbh.

I'm thinking if I stall my YV for 5 turns, am I going to get done for stalemate play, even though it is a hilarious bloodbath rather than an actual effective tactic? Am I evil? Am I the Bossk of this?

There are a lot of questions to be answered before any changes to the game, rules or points are considered.

Anyway, I'm.not gonna stall the YV for 5 turns, it's not actually effective

But if I were, I'd be checking up with my TO if it was Ok, and informing my oppo that I can. Or can't but could, if it weren't for those pesky kids.

I do tell my opponent I can ofc, anyway . And then I don't. Is that legal? Because that works as well 🤣

43 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Objectives

Force engagement around the middle by putting **** there that's of any interest to both players

Yeah, objective play would allow an additional possible victory condition, which works in other tabletop wargames, such as warmahordes where you can win on either Scenario or Assassination. You can originally plan for Assassination, but when someone drops down Butcher3 on the other side of the table, Scenario starts looking a lot more attractive.

Similarly, if you realize that your opponent is stalling on the far corner of the board and you don't feel like flying into their combined arcs, you just hold the objective and take the win unless they come towards you.

Mitch is a good friend of mine. He and I played a casual game on Sunday at worlds. For simple nostalgia, I wanted to fly my Palp Aces against his vipers. I listened to the advice he gave during an interview he did with FBP (where he graciously addressed the controversy covered in this thread but also gave advice on how to approach quad vipers) concerning turn 0. I made sure the only cluster of rocks on the board was on my edge. That's where HIS ideal engagement needed to happen and that's where it did happen. He didn't pace back and forth along his edge the way some are characterzing his opening. He moved immediately to take the ground where it was ideal for him to engage. What some regard as "stalling" or "exploiting the stalemate" is, in my humble opinion, a misread, an unfortunate correlation. Mitch will position his vipers where he can gain advantage. That's a fundamental approach for any savvy player. If you, as his opponent, give him that ground on HIS side of the board then he stays put, as is wise. His opening is a function of where he can exploit closely clustered obstacles.

I'd also like to amplify the attention given to his obvious, incontrovertible skill. I've played Mitch many times and he has flown a variety of lists. He brings world-level skill to every list he plays. I think it's crystal clear if you watch any of his games. I hope that fact isn't lost in the call to "solve" the "problem" of "stalling" vipers.

8 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

1. Vipers. Stalemate play.... maybe. Buuuut.... if you point nuke it, do you ruin the ship?

2. Can an Enforcer do it?

1. Possibly

2. Yes.

10 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Why hasn't this list been picked up and used for this purpose as much as Phantoms were? Could it be?

48 pt I3 (Black Sun Assassin) vs 48 pt I4 (Sigma Squadron pilot)... Competitive field for less than 5 ships in a list trends towards I4+ from what I can tell.

50 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

As things stand, you are the objective.

As things stand, if one player has significantly more final salvo dice, they are the objective. The problem is, they control that objective by default, and are thus under no obligation to engage.

37 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

It only fits it if they are doing it. a bunch of X-wing going forward does not meet that criteria

Which is funny since both T-65s and T-70s are just as capable at camping a board edge.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Which is funny since both T-65s and T-70s are just as capable at camping a board edge.

they are, but if the X-wings are going into the rocks it's not stalling.

11 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

1. Enforcer.

2. Yes.

48 pt I3 (Black Sun Assassin) vs 48 pt I4 (Sigma Squadron pilot)... Competitive field for less than 5 ships in a list trends towards I4+ from what I can tell.

2. Effectively?

Points at lower fact.

Because this supports Mitch being legend so far.

If the Enforcer can do it effectively, in anybodys hands, then it's a very thorny issue with the ship that can't be punctured with a points pin. But I think those guys get Init killed by too much stuff.

If only the Assassin was I4 and 51pt. What an overcosted beauty. I'm sure Mitch would still love it and nobody would even be thinking about stalemate exploitation atm. Just a fantastic Worlds.

I've played this same list for several months now, and done reasonably well at a few tournaments. I don't know that I'm buying the fact that this list necessarily takes longer per ship to maneuver than any other four ship list.

Once you wrap your head around the barrel roll, and where you can end up with that barrel roll, it's really no slower than any other list.

But I think I'm generally a reasonably fast player, so usually my programming on a turn to turn basis is faster than my opponents.

What I have noticed, and that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that sometimes my opponents have been so worried about where my ships can end up that their programming takes longer. I realize that's not what the discussion is here, but can still be a factor in playing against the vipers. From an enjoyment perspective, this list is easily the most fun I've had in X-Wing, going back to Wave 1 in 1.0. I understand why the nerf happened to the quad phantoms. I really hope that doesn't happen to the vipers.

29 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

1. 2. Effectively?

Points at lower fact.

Because this supports Mitch being legend so far.

2. If the Enforcer can do it effectively, in anybodys hands , then it's a very thorny issue with the ship that can't be punctured with a points pin. But I think those guys get Init killed by too much stuff.

If only the Assassin was I4 and 51pt. What an overcosted beauty. I'm sure Mitch would still love it and nobody would even be thinking about stalemate exploitation atm. Just a fantastic Worlds.

1. Questionably. I2, as you accurately point out, is very susceptible to getting nuked of the table (so is I3 for that case) and mitigating upgrades for that in a 4 of Enforcer list are either too pricey to take in mass or not available due to the lack of the slot.

2. Nothing works in everybody's hands. Not everyone can think in curves either.

37 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

they are, but if the X-wings are going into the rocks it's not stalling.

Which basically goes to both of our point, though I may be being too generous thinking everyone is able to glean my full meaning from what I type, that it is the actions and intentions of the player regardless of the ships in the list, TIE/Z/etc players can ******* do what CrimsonWarlock did with his Starvipers and end up with a bigger final salvo for ****'s sake , that defines it.

Would it be considered super stupid if Final Salvo was changed to pick one ship to roll die?

Although this could brink back triple Ups. I don’t think Mitch did anything wrong, played within the rules. But my thinking is if you change certain lists win condition, it could change a lot of these arguments.

What I would prefer though is this - FFG make a stack ton of money from these spaceships, they should come up with concrete rules to help judges all over the place.