4 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Final Salvo
If both players have the same score at the end of a game, they must fire a Final Salvo to determine the winner. To fire a Final Salvo, each player adds together the highest printed, unmodified primary weapon value of each of their remaining ships (those that have not been destroyed or fled) and rolls attack dice equal to that number. The player who rolls the highest total number of combined hits and critical hits wins the game. If both players roll an equal number of hits and critical hits, they roll again until a winner is determined.
If a game ends in mutual destruction, each player instead adds together the highest printed, unmodified primary weapon value of each of the ships in their squad and rolls attack dice equal to that number.

Simplest fix...Final Salvo only takes effect when the both players have the same score AND it is above 0. The odd mirror match may be resolved with a FS, but games that end with 0 points on each side simply confer a loss to both players. Done!

2 hours ago, Quack Shot said:

Judges have had a long history of using World’s precedence on future events that they run. The whole point of the judge illuminate was to agree on controversial rulings until FFG set precedence or rule reference change. Here we have top level judges deciding that they aren’t going to follow FFG.

(emphasis mine)

RE @Flyingbrick : While the bolded statement above is the right of each and every head judge (though only insofar as they're not breaking an official rule without very good reason), this is why my quote above said "[until] there’s no more room for confusion or personal taste [...]" (also emphasis mine). We currently have a set of rules that explicitly disallows some player activities, while seemingly ignoring others that can be superficially similar. Paul and Dee have every right as the head judges of their events to make a judgement call on where the line in the sand is. While I'll admit that the reluctance to describe exactly where that line is is...disheartening at minimum, I understand the difficulty of the position. It's why I defended Mitch so heavily after my Hyperspace Trial brought Butterflying to the community's attention (or perhaps resurfaced it), and why I spent so long afterwards trying to figure out where my line-in-the-sand was. Ask any of the other Warlock event coordinators how long I spent trying to figure out a solution that solved the problem, was as un-arbitrary as I could manage, and also didn't single out any one player specifically. I'm to this day not even sure I have the best answer possible.

1 hour ago, dadocollin said:

I’ll point out that the FFG stream that ran at least two of the vipers’ matches and had two prominent X-wing voices commentating did not seem to have issue with the way the vipers were being flown. Perhaps it was more egregious in earlier rounds?

Go find any commentary on the June SoCal Hyperspace Trial final and you'll see where the negative comments came from, even if Mitch flew admirably in his World's games. There's a history to this list...

Thanks for what you have said above. I had been wondering where the line could possibly be draw on how to flow correctly a starviper much less other ships that would have a similar dial. The e-wing comes to mind although a less popular ship. As have been mentioned before i can understand if ships kept bumping in a corner all match or ships like the defender kept k turning in a similar way. But to use the built in s loop and barrel roll to eventually head towards engagement albeit in a manner that best suited it like how Mitch played this, i never saw an issue with. And if there really is a problem with this then FFG needs to go back and redesign the dials and linked actions for a few ships.

Let's say I'm slow playing my opponent, taking a painfully long amount of time to set dials each round, because it advantages me to do so.

So a judge is watching. I've been thinking about a dial for thirty seconds.

Thirty one seconds.

Thirty two seconds.

Thirty three seconds...

At which exact second does the judge give me a verbal warning to speed up my play?

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

3 minutes ago, svelok said:

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

The answer could be to change tournament play to be (say as an example) 75 minutes or 10 turns, whichever happens second.

14 minutes ago, svelok said:

Let's say I'm slow playing my opponent, taking a painfully long amount of time to set dials each round, because it advantages me to do so.

So a judge is watching. I've been thinking about a dial for thirty seconds.

Thirty one seconds.

Thirty two seconds.

Thirty three seconds...

At which exact second does the judge give me a verbal warning to speed up my play?

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

Clearly the answer is chess clock format

1 hour ago, svelok said:

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

It is very much an "I know it when I see it" type of situation.

The main difference is that there is a stated rule against slow play/stalling which specifically calls out pace of play , but there is not a stated rule against avoiding engagements via dial/action selection as long as you are moving at a normal pace of play. A new "rule" was extrapolated out of the rule against fortressing. Taking it out of the context of fortressing, some judges have come to the conclusion that any form of delaying engagement via dial and/or action choices, independent of pace of play, independent of overlapping, to gain an advantage is possibly actionable, and not just FFG stated abuse of the overlapping mechanics, and in fact going against the stated ruling at an official FFG event, which is where the breakdown is, and why I believe there is the perhaps wider community disagreement about the judges' decisions.

Yes, TOs/judges can rule whatever they want to at non-official events (like, wearing a red shirt = auto loss of final salvos!), but as well players can voice disagreement about their rulings in hope of "talking some sense" to them, and judges are free to disregard that and stick to their guns and players can avoid their tourneys and life rolls on. Or maybe they listen and people attend.

Its all good and just some conversation on the forums in the end.

13 hours ago, caelenvasius said:

Go find any commentary on the June SoCal Hyperspace Trial final and you'll see where the negative comments came from, even if Mitch flew admirably in his World's games. There's a history to this list...

I watched that game. And then re-watched it yesterday. Or rather watched the first and last ten minutes of it.

Keep in mind that both players were engaging in this, so I don't see it as strictly a viper issue.

Just about *any* list has the capability of strolling along the back edge of the board for any length of time.

33 minutes ago, svelok said:

Let's say I'm slow playing my opponent, taking a painfully long amount of time to set dials each round, because it advantages me to do so.

So a judge is watching. I've been thinking about a dial for thirty seconds.

Thirty one seconds.

Thirty two seconds.

Thirty three seconds...

At which exact second does the judge give me a verbal warning to speed up my play?

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

You make an excellent point here. The line may be hard to define since it varies on a case by case basis. You might not be able to pin down the exact amount of allowable time (but 30 sec per dial seems like a good base line). However a judge gonna catch some flak from the community if he calls a slow play penalty after someone's had a dial their hand for 10 seconds going into the first engagement.

Likewise, there could be a reasonable time limit to how long you want to allow someone to spend in a particular part of the map. (I'll accept demanding a line in the Sand was unfair) However, I feel that flying to the corner and then proceeding directly towards my opponent does not cross that line.

There may be times where remaining stationary could be called for. In my game vs Calen, he had It's the Resistance on Finn. I had no intention of attacking Calen's position until that card resolved and Finn was deployed to the board. I believe it would be unfair that a Judge mandate that I must attack before all the pieces hit the board.

The Crux of this points is that we now have conduct that is defined as sporting or unsporting based on what upgrades I (or my opponent ) brought. Holding a static position while the score is 0-0 wrong, unless you brought Dank Droids, or your opponent has GA-97. (Apologies if this comes off as a strawman, but Heaver did state waiting for Dank Droids to get into range was OK, and I extrapolated that waiting on GA-97 to resolve would be similarly OK. correct me if I am wrong). This feels weird to me. It's odd that one can get a pass for these cases, but not because " I brought ships with hypermaneuverability"

8 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

The Crux of this points is that we now have conduct that is defined as sporting or unsporting based on what upgrades I (or my opponent ) brought.

I think the 'what I brought' part is based upon historically what has been an issue (not necessary by that specific player either) and is something that judges aware of to watch for specifically. As stated by others, you can find a way to hang around in your own corner with other ships. People tend not to, probably because it's not as easy to do or to react with, but it's possible.

The scenario is still going back to looking at the table, seeing what's going on, and making a judgement call that things aren't moving the way they should be. Judges will catch flak on judgement calls no matter which way they call it, so it kind of sucks being a judge sometimes...

Why have I posted in this thread?

1 hour ago, Mattman7306 said:

Clearly the answer is chess clock format

I keep thinking about it.

30-35 minutes per player on the clock. Pause at the start of dial setting, and when you're complete, you can slap the clock to put your opponent on the timer for the rest of their dial setting.

One thing which is nice about the clock in Guild Ball is that you don't lose when you hit zero. You start with 45 minutes, if you clock out you get 5 more minutes, and your opponent gains 1 victory point out the of 12 needed (so an X-Wing equivalent of like 17 points). You can get these extra 5 minutes twice before losing automatically.

To do something similar in X-Wing, victory would be scoring 200 points: either through ship destruction (as normal), an opponent clocking out (say... 20 points for easy math), or possible objectives (to be sure, a separate discussion). Heck, maybe have no automatic victory for clocking out, but escalating point values. 10, 20, 30, 40, etc.

8 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Why have I posted in this thread?

To make @gennataos give you a sad emote? 😥

2 hours ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

The Crux of this points is that we now have conduct that is defined as sporting or unsporting based on what upgrades I (or my opponent ) brought. Holding a static position while the score is 0-0 wrong, unless you brought Dank Droids, or your opponent has GA-97. (Apologies if this comes off as a strawman, but Heaver did state waiting for Dank Droids to get into range was OK, and I extrapolated that waiting on GA-97 to resolve would be similarly OK. correct me if I am wrong). This feels weird to me. It's odd that one can get a pass for these cases, but not because " I brought ships with hypermaneuverability"

This is indeed strange, because the (Head) judge/TO in this case almost invalidates certain upgrades, by specifically allowing countering these - and only these - certain upgrades using methods otherwise deemed illegal . Means do not bring these updates. Very slippery slope.

3 hours ago, svelok said:

Let's say I'm slow playing my opponent, taking a painfully long amount of time to set dials each round, because it advantages me to do so.

So a judge is watching. I've been thinking about a dial for thirty seconds.

Thirty one seconds.

Thirty two seconds.

Thirty three seconds...

At which exact second does the judge give me a verbal warning to speed up my play?

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

I had a game where I had my dials down and then waited 5 minutes for them to finish. I had 4 ships to their 5. After 3 minutes I said something and then waited another 2 full minutes for them to finish. This was the second to last round of the game, a game that I was losing. So I was a little frustrated. In addition, the round before this was also similar... all my dials were down and then waited 3-4 minutes for my opponent to finish theirs. (didn't officially time this group, but was the reason I timed the next)

Luckily I ended up winning the game by getting half pts on a ship on the last shots.

4 hours ago, svelok said:

The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

Perhaps, but there must be a standard that can be set to reduce arbitrary decision-making. The fewer of those, the better and healthier the competitive meta. This was why the "Judge Illuminati" was formed, as Quack_shot has mentioned. And until that standard is set in a way that is definable—even if it can't be perfectly exacting—we can always come up with non-cornercase scenarios which challenge the specific arbitrary responses we've had so far. It was mentioned with Dank Droids, or GA-97, or any other thing we can think of. My gut-check disliking of the current non-official rulings is that it specifically targets one list over another. Why is it ok that droids with struts can wait on rocks for their opponent to come to them but a sideslipping Phantom or Viper can't? It's just as much of a "Gotcha" moment for an unprepared player, and it takes even less skill to set up. If the answer "droids with struts cant wait on rocks" just to satisfy your ruling then you're breaking a core rule of the ship in question. Sure, the question above sounds unreasonable and absurd, but the correlation is valid and should shine a light on why this is a sticky topic.

3 hours ago, underling said:

Keep in mind that both players were engaging in this, so I don't see it as strictly a viper issue.

I know, I was the marshal of that event. I had to sit there and watch it, making sure Mr. Raab and Mr. Nordell played swiftly despite their butterflying and not-fotressing respectively. When Nordell got bored and flew the ARC off the tale, you can see me in the background get up and storm away in frustration. You might even be able to hear the yelling in the commentator track. [Edit: Despite the above statement, talk to any player who also watched in-person, and there were a lot of jokes and good vibes being passed around while Mitch and Mike pushed plastic around in little circles. It may have been a bit of a time waster, but it wasn't a bad time all things considered. Just ask Quack_shot, who was a commentator for it.]

Any list can do this. This is why it's frustrating to me that only Vipers (and to a far less extent Phantoms) seem to be targeted by folks' ire.

2 hours ago, LagJanson said:

Why have I posted in this thread?

Because you're a dirty masochist.

[SNIP] Hit quote instead of edit because I'm a dummy.

4 minutes ago, caelenvasius said:

Because you're a dirty masochist.

No. I dislike pain. A lot. I'm not like other people. Pain hurts me.

Maybe I just hate myself.

3 hours ago, kris40k said:

It is very much an "I know it when I see it" type of situation.

So it's an ace?

24 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

No. I dislike pain. A lot. I'm not like other people. Pain hurts me.

Maybe I just hate myself.

I mean, you were on the krayt discord. Counterpoint, you left the krayt discord

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I mean, you were on the krayt discord. Counterpoint, you left the krayt discord

Krayt Thread Discord. Is that the same thing? Different levels of pain and agony?

@gennataos - I'll run you out of tears, man. You can't cry forever. Eventually all that'll be left is a trail of salt!

41 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

I'm not like other people. Pain hurts me.

17 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Krayt Thread Discord. Is that the same thing? Different levels of pain and agony?

i think one of them is just a thinner french version of the other?

I got the @gennataos sad face!!!!

😆 😢 😆 😢 😆 😢

1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

I cannot articulate what this means or why it is appropriate, but somehow I understand that it is.