Floor Rules Perspective (Mobile Fortressing)

[Croste 105]

I will be hosting a Prime Championship and I would like to get some insight on somethings.

I fully understand the fortressing rule. What is Mobile Fortressing and how does it differ from Aces running to regen shields or avoiding additional combat near the end of the round because your up on points?

I get the tactic of regen. I get the tactic of taking advantage of a faster more agile ship to win the match.

I just don't understand the term of Mobile Fortressing and how to determine if it's just a tactic to engage on your terms or a form of stalling.

Edited February 22 by Croste

[RejjeN 195]

It's a form of stalling by being able to move up and down the side of the board (or something to that effect) without risk of breaking up your formation, effectively ignoring your opponent *unless* they come to you. Because you (likely) have the advantage in a straight joust or final salvo.

[Croste 105]

But staying in formation is a tactic. Why must someone be forced into the Aces game? Forced to chase.

Just cruising up and down one edge is Mobile Fortressing?

[RejjeN 195]

The reason it's largely considered a murky grey area is due to how the "fortressing" player's objective isn't to engage their opponent, but to stall out the game to final salvo or forcing their opponent into a disadvantageous engagement.

[JBFancourt 1,261]

🤦‍♂️ Here we go, again...

[Croste 105]

I get the stalling for final salvo. That's just cheating. But forcing your opponent into a bad engagement is good tactics. I guess it will be up to the officiate to decide. I'm prior military,  **** yeah I want to force my adversary into an unfavorable engagment.

[Croste 105]

3 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

🤦‍♂️ Here we go, again...

I haven't seen anything on this. If you could point me to a link on this discussion, I would love to research on it.

[JBFancourt 1,261]

10 hours ago, Croste said:

I haven't seen anything on this. If you could point me to a link on this discussion, I would love to research on it.

This is the biggest one probably. But there were a lot of them back around the timing of Quad Phantoms and Vipers.

Dialogue gets pretty .... interesting.... lol

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/301351-nest-of-‘vipers-at-worlds/

Edited February 22 by JBFancourt

[theBitterFig 11,598]

4 hours ago, Croste said:

How does [Mobile Fortressing] differ from Aces running to regen shields or avoiding additional combat near the end of the round because your up on points?

Personally, I don't think it does.  Aces who run and circle the drain for the first long part of a game, to me, aren't different in character to a Phantom Hover or Starviper Shuffle.  They're both ways of tactically-beneficial non-engagement.  If it happens fast enough, I don't see a problem with it.

My point of view is that stalling rules are about pace of physical play.  As long as dials are set at a good clip, as long as there isn't too much time spent deciding on actions, it's not stalling.  I don't consider quickly flying away as stalling; stalling is when someone takes a long time to "decide" whether they'll fly away or turn in, to shorten the amount of turns that can happen in a given amount of time.

Without a doubt, this is forbidden, and drawing out the time it takes to perform actions in order to burn clock time should be penalized.  There's some thorny judgement calls in there, since some players simply are more deliberative, or newer and just take longer, etc etc.  But I'd agree that it can cross the line into problem territory.

//

I also know that there are a lot of big names--champions and podcasters--in X-Wing and tournaments who disagree, and went so far as to preemptively threaten disqualification to players who mobile fortress.

One issue with this is that it's incredibly difficulty to point to a time within a game.  It's hard to isolate one turn, one action where someone has crossed a line.  Instead, it's more about particular players having a style shown over multiple games.  In a lot of ways, it's similar to determining what is actually time-delay-stalling, and what's just a player who takes more time than others.

At this point, it's also worth noting that mobile fortressing, other than when Quad Juke Phantoms were popular, hasn't really been much of "a thing."  There was one noteworthy final game in a tournament where nothing happened for most of it until literally the last round, and a pretty small number of players overall using the tactic.  It just doesn't come up that often.

//

So aces often take their time to approach.  They want to get to good positions, not joust, not wind up in a lot of arcs at the same time.  This usually involves waiting for a player at lower initiative with more ships to overcommit, and when this happens, the aces can exploit that overcommitment.  Overwhelmingly, the X-Wing community is fine with this.

But there is a potential pitfall for the ace player with this tactic.  They typically lose in Final Salvo if nothing is destroyed.  To some extend, mobile fortressing is a tactic that arises out of the understanding that the ace player starts the game behind, and nothing is forcing someone to overcommit to attacking aces.

So we have, not quite a Catch-22, but a lose-lose situation for someone with a list of generics.  If they overcommit to attacking aces, that weakens their position, and they're more likely to lose the game.  However, if they don't overcommit, they'll be yelled at by podcasters at for mobile fortressing and stalling.

Personally, I think that second part is inappropriate.  I don't think judges should be dictating strategy and tactics like this.  I think the right thing is to let players figure things out over the board.  I just don't think it's right to demand a player fly in a way they think is worse, simply because they've got a Final Salvo lead.  Part of why this is irksome to me is that consensus is that it's fine if for the last few minutes of a game, an ace player with a points lead bugs out, and doesn't try to fight out the rest of the game.  It's fine when an ace does it, it's not fine when a generic player does it.  Geese with gander sauce, etc.

//

I guess I'm oddly disproportionally ****ed off at the anti-mobile fortressing side.  I think I generally get into the fighting pretty quick within a game.  However, a lot of complaint about it has, to me, felt like ace players who felt entitled to wins over a list of generics.  Given the small scale of the "problem" in the first place, this is certainly an overblown discussion.

//

Ultimately, it's your tournament, and your decision.

If you don't like mobile fortressing, say that.  If you don't mind, say that instead.  If you've got feelings one way or the other about it, you don't need to justify things strongly from first principles, and frankly you don't need to listen to anyone else.

In practice, that's what happened with a lot of tournaments where the marshals and judges have decided they don't like mobile fortressing.  Simply decided it is a disqualifying offense, because they're in charge.

[Hiemfire 7,292]

9 hours ago, Croste said:

What is Mobile Fortressing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

[Croste 105]

8 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Personally, I don't think it does.  Aces who run and circle the drain for the first long part of a game, to me, aren't different in character to a Phantom Hover or Starviper Shuffle.  They're both ways of tactically-beneficial non-engagement.  If it happens fast enough, I don't see a problem with it.

My point of view is that stalling rules are about pace of physical play.  As long as dials are set at a good clip, as long as there isn't too much time spent deciding on actions, it's not stalling.  I don't consider quickly flying away as stalling; stalling is when someone takes a long time to "decide" whether they'll fly away or turn in, to shorten the amount of turns that can happen in a given amount of time.

Without a doubt, this is forbidden, and drawing out the time it takes to perform actions in order to burn clock time should be penalized.  There's some thorny judgement calls in there, since some players simply are more deliberative, or newer and just take longer, etc etc.  But I'd agree that it can cross the line into problem territory.

//

I also know that there are a lot of big names--champions and podcasters--in X-Wing and tournaments who disagree, and went so far as to preemptively threaten disqualification to players who mobile fortress.

One issue with this is that it's incredibly difficulty to point to a time within a game.  It's hard to isolate one turn, one action where someone has crossed a line.  Instead, it's more about particular players having a style shown over multiple games.  In a lot of ways, it's similar to determining what is actually time-delay-stalling, and what's just a player who takes more time than others.

At this point, it's also worth noting that mobile fortressing, other than when Quad Juke Phantoms were popular, hasn't really been much of "a thing."  There was one noteworthy final game in a tournament where nothing happened for most of it until literally the last round, and a pretty small number of players overall using the tactic.  It just doesn't come up that often.

//

So aces often take their time to approach.  They want to get to good positions, not joust, not wind up in a lot of arcs at the same time.  This usually involves waiting for a player at lower initiative with more ships to overcommit, and when this happens, the aces can exploit that overcommitment.  Overwhelmingly, the X-Wing community is fine with this.

But there is a potential pitfall for the ace player with this tactic.  They typically lose in Final Salvo if nothing is destroyed.  To some extend, mobile fortressing is a tactic that arises out of the understanding that the ace player starts the game behind, and nothing is forcing someone to overcommit to attacking aces.

So we have, not quite a Catch-22, but a lose-lose situation for someone with a list of generics.  If they overcommit to attacking aces, that weakens their position, and they're more likely to lose the game.  However, if they don't overcommit, they'll be yelled at by podcasters at for mobile fortressing and stalling.

Personally, I think that second part is inappropriate.  I don't think judges should be dictating strategy and tactics like this.  I think the right thing is to let players figure things out over the board.  I just don't think it's right to demand a player fly in a way they think is worse, simply because they've got a Final Salvo lead.  Part of why this is irksome to me is that consensus is that it's fine if for the last few minutes of a game, an ace player with a points lead bugs out, and doesn't try to fight out the rest of the game.  It's fine when an ace does it, it's not fine when a generic player does it.  Geese with gander sauce, etc.

//

I guess I'm oddly disproportionally ****ed off at the anti-mobile fortressing side.  I think I generally get into the fighting pretty quick within a game.  However, a lot of complaint about it has, to me, felt like ace players who felt entitled to wins over a list of generics.  Given the small scale of the "problem" in the first place, this is certainly an overblown discussion.

//

Ultimately, it's your tournament, and your decision.

If you don't like mobile fortressing, say that.  If you don't mind, say that instead.  If you've got feelings one way or the other about it, you don't need to justify things strongly from first principles, and frankly you don't need to listen to anyone else.

In practice, that's what happened with a lot of tournaments where the marshals and judges have decided they don't like mobile fortressing.  Simply decided it is a disqualifying offense, because they're in charge.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

[Croste 105]

5 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

Nice

[Lyianx 1,434]

9 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

they'll be yelled at by podcasters at for mobile fortressing and stalling

**** with podcasters. Podcasters are not judges. The judges are the ones who determine if a player is breaking the rules or not. Podcasters are, more or less, armchair judging, and they need to stick to commentating the games, and keep their judments to themselves.

 

Strictly rules wise, there is no such thing as "mobile fortressing". I agree with you BitterFig. I see slow play as intentionally making decisions slowly. Having your ships not taking routes to directly engage their opponent doesn't qualify as slow play. If a set of aces is being careful about when and where to engage, that isn't any different than keeping a swarm of ships information to concentrate fire, or flying in, firing ordinance, then flying out. Its part of the list, and the entire point of tournaments is learning how to overcome squads and your opponent. And that isnt just down to what ships are being flown or what abilities they have, but HOW the ships are flown.

Any judge who 'bans mobile fortresses' (again, a term that doesn't legally exist), is doing so as an additional 'house rule', and isnt strictly following FFG tournament regulations.

 

[Frimmel 2,593]

9 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I don't think judges should be dictating strategy and tactics like this.  I think the right thing is to let players figure things out over the board.  I just don't think it's right to demand a player fly in a way they think is worse, simply because they've got a Final Salvo lead.  Part of why this is irksome to me is that consensus is that it's fine if for the last few minutes of a game, an ace player with a points lead bugs out, and doesn't try to fight out the rest of the game.  It's fine when an ace does it, it's not fine when a generic player does it.  Geese with gander sauce, etc.

//

I guess I'm oddly disproportionally ****ed off at the anti-mobile fortressing side.  I think I generally get into the fighting pretty quick within a game.  However, a lot of complaint about it has, to me, felt like ace players who felt entitled to wins over a list of generics.  Given the small scale of the "problem" in the first place, this is certainly an overblown discussion.

I think this is the especially good part of an overall good post. 

[FilipeFreitas 7]

I wonder if someone with a swarm of Fireballs could manage to avoid engagement by slamming away during one entire game... Enough dice for the final salvo advantage against most lists, and could probably work against slow ships...

[Hiemfire 7,292]

51 minutes ago, FilipeFreitas said:

I wonder if someone with a swarm of Fireballs could manage to avoid engagement by slamming away during one entire game... Enough dice for the final salvo advantage against most lists, and could probably work against slow ships...

7 ships is the max that can fit (might as well throw R4s on them then) for 14 FS dice. A better middle ground would be to take advantage of the hyper mobility to set up a 2/3/2 (left/center/right) envelopement timed to engage at the Colossus' player's discretion. It'll probably still trigger the same rage reactions that Quad Vipers and Quad Phantoms do in either case.

[theBitterFig 11,598]

1 hour ago, FilipeFreitas said:

I wonder if someone with a swarm of Fireballs could manage to avoid engagement by slamming away during one entire game... Enough dice for the final salvo advantage against most lists, and could probably work against slow ships...

I don't think it'll work.  Splitting up in different directions probably gets someone caught, but trying to stay together with a running group of Fireballs probably is too unwieldy to stay out of arc.

22 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

A better middle ground would be to take advantage of the hyper mobility to set up a 2/3/2 (left/center/right) envelopement timed to engage at the Colossus' player's discretion. It'll probably still trigger the same rage reactions that Quad Vipers and Quad Phantoms do in either case.

The split up and flank is something really different though.  For all I think the "no hover" crowd was kind of full of BS, using speed to engage from the side is probably something they'd all have been fine with.