Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clutterbuck

Self-Bump Question

Recommended Posts

Scenario:

I have two large base ships and a small base ship.  I want to delay the large base ships from committing to going anywhere until I can see a little of what the opponent is doing.  No desire to fortress or to exploit a stalemate.  My small base ship is actively playing, making its own separate approach.   How long can I bump my two big bases together before I run afoul of the rules makers?  There is no written rule (that I know of) to cover how the interpretations and unwritten rules are being applied.  Is it literally just "I know it when I see it?"  If so, then I'd need to ask a judge before every set of games.  

I promise this is not meant as a crusade.  I just want to know, as I practice with this list I have in mind, how I am allowed to play it, and what strategies I am allowed to utilize to win.  I don;t think I could win many salvos anyhow, so whole game stalling is not an option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Clutterbuck said:

Scenario:

I have two large base ships and a small base ship.  I want to delay the large base ships from committing to going anywhere until I can see a little of what the opponent is doing.  No desire to fortress or to exploit a stalemate.  My small base ship is actively playing, making its own separate approach.   How long can I bump my two big bases together before I run afoul of the rules makers?  There is no written rule (that I know of) to cover how the interpretations and unwritten rules are being applied.  Is it literally just "I know it when I see it?"  If so, then I'd need to ask a judge before every set of games. 

Technically what you describe is 100%  legal under the official tournament regulations, though the Marshal of any tournaments you go to may have differing opinions on if it qualifies as stalling or not (so sadly the bolded applies...).

For reference:

Official 2.0 Tournament regs:

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/d1/88/d1884752-34e1-4ad6-a992-824f41694a03/x-wing_20_tournament_regulations_printer_friendly.pdf

Floor Rules (a bit generic in how it is written, but it applies to all official tournaments for FFG games) :

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/e0/4f/e04f6d73-6e5e-4351-b067-0020f070365a/fantasy_flight_floor_rules.pdf

26 minutes ago, KingmanHighborn said:

I 'think' it's one turn iirc that you can self bump to hold up. 

Nope.

Edited by Hiemfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the core of the rule.  Ignore partly the "leader/marshal" distinctions.  It's possibly important for really large tournaments, but mostly just read the terms as any sort of judge. 

Quote

The act of fortressing can only be determined by a marshal. At the end of any Activation Phase, a player may request that a leader check their opponent’s ships for fortressing. If the leader confirms that the criteria are met, a marshal then makes the determination whether or not player is fortressing.

The criteria in the game state for fortressing are as follows:

• Due to the maneuvers that a player has selected, all of that player’s ships have overlapped one another in such a manner that none have changed positions on the board for two or more consecutive rounds.

• That player could have selected maneuvers that did not result in the same game state.

If the leader determines that these criteria are not met, they should inform the players and consider the matter resolved. If the leader confirms that the situation fits the above criteria, they should call for a marshal to deliver a final ruling.

If the marshal determines that a player is trying to use fortressing to their advantage, they should inform the player of this fact and instruct that player to plot maneuvers that end the fortressing board state. If the player fails to do so, at the end of the next Activation Phase, all of their ships are destroyed and the game ends.

Alternately, if the marshal determines that a player has reached this state unintentionally, they should privately ensure the player is aware of maneuvers they can select to free their ships from the collision. If the player then fails to select to free their ships, at the end of the next Activation Phase, their opponent may again request the leader check for fortressing

Here's how I read it:

  • Turn 1: Bump.  Totally fine.
  • Turn 2: Bump.  Still OK, but it does trigger a response.  This is two or more consecutive turns.  At this point, the opponent can call a judge/marshal, etc. to verify that nothing is moving.
  • Turn 3: Gotta break it up.  If you don't move the ships out of the fortress formation:
    • If the marshal thinks you're doing it intentionally, you lose.
    • If the marshal thinks you're trying to break it up and fail, they will tell you what moves you can use, and you'll have to use those to break it up.  In this case, the fortress isn't broken up until turn 4.

In the letter of the law, this only applies to whole lists where *every* ship does this, and if it's just two Upsilons bumping while Kylo roams free, by the strict text of the rule, there's nothing wrong, even after 4 or 5 or 6 turns with the Upsilons.

However... this is one of those cases where the "spirit of the rule" might matter more than the letter.  Back when there were a lot of quad Phantom and a few quad Starviper lists, some podcasters and high-profile judges took a hard line against a "mobile fortress."  It took a very expansive reading of the rule, but still, this was often the folks with the authority, and they'd made up their minds.

So, where does that leave a player?  I think any reasonable judge ought to hold to the spirit of "two turns static, then break it up turn three."  That's how I'd play.  Bump my large ships no more than twice, even if my small ship is off on it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to roll my eyes a bit at the "spirit of the rule" thing. Do the technical rules let you fly a mobile fortress? I say freaking go for it. An opponent who does their research and knows what your typical tricks are will bring a list that flings plenty of bombs and mines to rain on your parade.

But, I'm not a judge and have no interest in being one, so c'est la vie. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Vectivus333 said:

I tend to roll my eyes a bit at the "spirit of the rule" thing. Do the technical rules let you fly a mobile fortress? I say freaking go for it. An opponent who does their research and knows what your typical tricks are will bring a list that flings plenty of bombs and mines to rain on your parade.

But, I'm not a judge and have no interest in being one, so c'est la vie. 

 

 

What folks would say is "there's also a rule against exploiting a 'stalemate condition' so even a mobile fortress violates the rules."  Now, I personally think that's an overly expansive reading, but it's still a reading of the text.  There is a plausible RAW interpretation which allows for judges to hand out losses for mobile fortresses.

I think that shows the ultimate inadequacy of attempting a so-called "pure RAW" interpretation.  We have to bring our own judgement to these things, to have an understanding of what a "stalemate condition" means, and what counts as exploiting it.  Whatever gets written has to be filtered through our own understanding--we can never remove ourselves from the process, and it's not just the individual, but the group.  Just like all language is social, it's also important to realize that all games are social.  Making sure people have fun playing the game is important to all games (note: winning is fun, too).  Enough of the community *really hates* mobile fortressing, so that's worth taking into account.

My main issue with the "no mobile fortress" judges was I always felt it was a bit of a "Clock Manipulation for me, but not for thee" sort of thing, where Aces are allowed to stall and circle the drain and shoot one thing then flee, but generic-based lists are forced to over-commit.

But even if I don't like it, even if I personally think it's over-reach, I don't think it's without justification to ban mobile fortressing.  Given this, I think the best thing we can do as a community is to "split the difference."  Apply the concisely written rule against a true-fortress to a mobile-fortress: a thing which is sorta-kinda-maybe also banned, but without much guidance on how to ban it.  It's possible to arrive at a harsher set of restrictions on mobile fortresses than true static formations.  As such, applying "two turns static, then break it up" seems like the most fair thing for everyone, something which gets everyone on the same page--whether they like or dislike these kinds of formations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2020 at 12:34 PM, theBitterFig said:

However... this is one of those cases where the "spirit of the rule" might matter more than the letter.  Back when there were a lot of quad Phantom and a few quad Starviper lists, some podcasters and high-profile judges took a hard line against a "mobile fortress."  It took a very expansive reading of the rule, but still, this was often the folks with the authority, and they'd made up their minds

FFG took a dim view of this and aforementioned judges eased their stance. The rules on what constitutes fortressing are clear. None of your ships move for 2 or more consecutive turns due to the dials that you set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...