The Alpha Turtle Rules

[monkus]

The Alpha Turtle Rules:

1. Stone golem in the back row or second to back row corner, with 4 units next to it ready to be stoned.
2. No mobile ranged units in the front row.
3. All mages (Pyro, DSM, DMW) must be in the back 3 rows
4. All units must be in 6 adjacent columns, where one of those columns is next to a wall.
5. No golem ambusher.

[monkus]

The old post:

Okay, first, let me just say how cool it is to hear people refer to a set of rules as "The monkus rules". Major ego boost. Thanks guys.
However, because I'm annoying like that, I still want some form of standardization that can be applied to tournaments, games, etc.
I'm calling these "The Alpha Turtle Rules", because first, I mean come on, it just sounds amazingly cool. Kind of like "The Super Omega Death Ray", but for turtle rules. Also, Alpha is usually first, so if we want to change them around, we can always make a Beta later on.

Now, onto the concept. This time, we're going to VOTE on what we want. I'm making a multi-option poll for everyone to vote on, so they can pick which aspects of turtle rules they like the best.
Note: THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF WHAT A TURTLE IS. This is simply a set of rules that any tournament can follow (claiming to use the "Alpha Turtle Rules", with a link here), so each tournament coordinator need not concern him or herself with defining turtles. Also, this way players can use one turtle for all their games and tournaments, and don't need to worry about specifying what is and isn't allowed.

Also, most of these differences were taken from tournament threads, my old thread, etc. I'll give the players of TAO the choice of which aspects they like and don't like.

Final note: I'm going to assume that no one wants the golem ambusher in turtle games, and probably for good reason. Most turtle games start with "No GA" or "No bushers", and I haven't seen a set of definitive rules that allow ambushers. Interpretations such as Bottle's "Turtles are forms that prefer opposite sides" are excellent for discourse, but not for defining tournaments, etc. And, as usual, any player can easily ask for exceptions to rules in tournaments, in games, etc., but it's nice to have something to fall back upon.

Now, what you'll be voting for:

First vote: Stone golem anywhere, or stone golem in back row or second row corners.
The latter prevents much more aggressive turtles from taking effect, such as those that have the stonie in front of cleric.

Second vote: Anything in the front row, no mobile ranged units in front row EXCEPT dragon, or no mobile ranged units in front row at all.
One point of controversy, many people like having forms with a DT front row. Others feel that no mobile ranged units should be in the front row. The first clearly allows things like frontrow muddies, which most people find inappropriate. The second and third are truly where the conflict lies, with the question remaining: Is a frontrow DT too aggressive for turtles?

Third vote: No restrictions on mages, mages must be in back three rows, or mages aren't allowed at all.
The term "units with an unblockable attack" was used in the CAU experiment thread, but I do feel this is a tad ambiguous. Mages are: Pyromancer, Dragonspeaker Mage, and Dark Magic Witch. Some people play with the "no dsm" rule, but this is a tad harsh. Others simply put a row restriction, or some just let bombers be bombers, even in turtle games.

Fourth vote: Units allowed in any columns, or units restricted to 6 columns next to one wall.
Is a turtle also defined by its alignment across the span of the board? The Legends vs. Revelations tournament defined it this way, but many others don't. Center turtles aren't unheard of, and sometimes turtles like to spread out a bit. Should this be allowed?


A final word: Vote for any aspects you like and against any you dislike. You need not vote on every decision, you can abstain if you wish. Voting for each and every choice (I.E. checking them all) really has no impact. Post your opinions, and hopefully we'll get something going!

Your favorite playa,
monkus

p.s. Sorry to anyone who saw the whole triple thread thingy, TAO lagged me out and it just posted over and over. Thanks a ton realist.

The poll will close by New Years so we can have a new set of rules for 2006 (hopefully).

[zzzaacckk]

voted. I think we are pretty close to the same page monk.

[Executioner]

I voted aswell, i got ones that were already winning, great minds eh?

[Bottle]

Whoops, I clicked stone golem anywhere by accident. :)

[Wayfaerer]

Public polls blow.

Not everyone can resist the intense peer pressure of chosing what's cool and righteous http://jconserv.net/swforums/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

[Office_Shredder]

Public polls blow.

Not everyone can resist the intense peer pressure of chosing what's cool and righteous http://jconserv.net/swforums/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

And then there are those of us who don't know cool if it slaps us on the face ;)

[Zenarial]

You'd think that if cool slapped you in the face he'd let you know who slapped you.

[Wayfaerer]

And then there are those of us who don't know cool if it slaps us on the face ;)
Yep, I feel sorry for those guys http://jconserv.net/swforums/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

[Bottle]

A better riposte might have been:

Yep, I feel sorry for you guys. :cool:

[Office_Shredder]

Damn straight you should feel sorry for us. In fact, I think the only way to pick up my spirits is a pity pos rep...

*cough cough*pleasedon'tnegmeitwasonlyajoke*cough cough*

*cough cough*butifyoureallywanttogivemeapityposrepIwouldn 'tbetooobjectivetoit*cough cough*

*cough cough*uuhhthatwasajoketooifyou'renowplanningonnegg ingmebutnotifyou'replanningonposingme*cough cough*

I think I covered all my bases there

[Bottle]

I think I covered all my bases there
I think you need some cough mixture.

[Moose]

Or you could simply use one sentence to define a turtle:

"A turtle formation is an arrangement of units huddled or spread in 1 corner of the TAO board."

Adding on the fact that the turtle can use any unit it like.

[EatMine]

Or you could simply just ignore the last post.

By the way, my definition for a turtle is like this:
"A game style that depends on the same blocking luck like every other game style if played by two similar-skilled players, but takes way more time to finish."
Jk, to each his own - every one should play what he likes .... :)

I think there should be an option "Has to be opposite sides" in the poll.

[monkus]

Or you could simply just ignore the last post.

By the way, my definition for a turtle is like this:
"A game style that depends on the same blocking luck like every other game style if played by two similar-skilled players, but takes way more time to finish."
Jk, to each his own - every one should play what he likes .... :)

I think there should be an option "Has to be opposite sides" in the poll.

Same side turtle games are a ton of fun. Plus, a ton of completely legitimate turtles are better same side. I know I've made a few. Why get rid of those?

Or you could simply use one sentence to define a turtle:

"A turtle formation is an arrangement of units huddled or spread in 1 corner of the TAO board."

Adding on the fact that the turtle can use any unit it like.

I'm so glad you approve of my new turtle. Check it out here! (http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6435/turtformoose0qc.jpg)

[Moose]

Thats just a stacking/rush form, true it does fall into context of my use of the word "huddled". However, the Turtle is not an offensive formation, but defensive, clearly that it is not a turtle seeing as it is in an offense posture.

No offense, but that form can still eaisly be beaten.

[Bottle]

Moose, are you thick? (Silly question, but...) He was being sarcastic because your definition was so rubbish.

[imagination]

i voted for the least restricted but still held back i could think of because my definition of a turtle would be " stone golem in the back 2 rows, all mages in the back 2-3 rows, no ga, 4 units must be stoned(or stoneable), and the form be somewhat based on the side". the only 2 things i dont like about usual monkus rules is that you cant have a dragon on the front line and you cant have you stone onse space forward from the back (not the corner but the one next to it)

[razor2007]

Imag, I thought you were better than that. We all know that stone 1 space in fornt of the cleric is a rush, plain and simple. ANyday I'll be happy to show you what a stoen in front of cleric "turtle" can do to a monkus turtle.

As for Moose....I said the same thing when I read your turtle post on Legends...."Bullshit." No turtle can legitimately have a GA.

Glad you like MY less sarcastic and clearly defensive, promise I'll only use the GA for sniping defensively, turtle. Here you go! (http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=turt4tu.jpg)

[Moose]

What would be the harm of having an ambusher as a stoned unit? Afterall it can only move 2 spaces, and with the furgon, wisp and now the berserker, an ambusher can more eaisly be countered with then before.

But yes, it is safe to say that on FPS, Ambushers are considered "to cheap" to be used in play. but then again thats the challenge of the turtle, is to defeat things that cause careful planning and consideration, if there was no new challenges for the turtlers of TAO to have, then all we would be playing right now is n00b rush forms where usually the first turn decides the win, along with luck.

Bottle, considering the turtle came out before FPS even existed, you'd know that the simplest answer to a question is often the most true, the way monkus has buttered up the "idea" of a turtle formation, has just taken what it stands for and made it way more complex then need be, but given your position that everything I say is either Bull sh!t or "rubbish" I don't expect you ever to agree.

Edit: By the way razor, thats a turtle form, the only problem with it is if you don't get the same side. Otherwise it looks fine to me.

[monkus]

What would be the harm of having an ambusher as a stoned unit? Afterall it can only move 2 spaces, and with the furgon, wisp and now the berserker, an ambusher can more eaisly be countered with then before.

The harm's really simple. First, 2 spaces can usually put an ambusher in range of a cleric in a same side game, at most two moves should be sufficient in a same side game. The furgon can't stop it without having to basically jump out into the open, and ANY attempt to kill it would basically have to be an all-out aggression, otherwise it won't die fast enough. Turtles should be able to maintain a defense. The ambusher imbalances the sides.
Also, keeping a frosty lock would be near impossible against ambusher turtles even opposite sides, because the defense would have to be AMAZINGLY LARGE in size to prevent an ambusher from getting into range. I should be able to make a thin furgon wall and use it as a decent level of defense.

But yes, it is safe to say that on FPS, Ambushers are considered "to cheap" to be used in play. but then again thats the challenge of the turtle, is to defeat things that cause careful planning and consideration, if there was no new challenges for the turtlers of TAO to have, then all we would be playing right now is n00b rush forms where usually the first turn decides the win, along with luck.

I play rushes with a turtle all the time. It's a ton of fun. It's also near impossible to beat someone of my level of playing in turtle vs. rush. It's one thing to want a challenge, which I do. It's another thing to try and make a tournament fair.

Bottle, considering the turtle came out before FPS even existed, you'd know that the simplest answer to a question is often the most true, the way monkus has buttered up the "idea" of a turtle formation, has just taken what it stands for and made it way more complex then need be, but given your position that everything I say is either Bull sh!t or "rubbish" I don't expect you ever to agree.

Nah, not this time I haven't. I specifically said in my opening post:

Note: THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF WHAT A TURTLE IS. This is simply a set of rules that any tournament can follow (claiming to use the "Alpha Turtle Rules", with a link here), so each tournament coordinator need not concern him or herself with defining turtles. Also, this way players can use one turtle for all their games and tournaments, and don't need to worry about specifying what is and isn't allowed.
HA! See? I'm not buttering up the idea of a turtle, because I'm not defining a turtle! I'm just making sure that tournaments need not check each and every form, or burden themselves with inventing a turtle type.
It'd be nice if someone sticky'd this, so tournaments from now on could just say "Alpha turtle rules" with a link here.


Edit: By the way razor, thats a turtle form, the only problem with it is if you don't get the same side. Otherwise it looks fine to me.
Bottle tried defining turtles as forms that prefers opposite sides. I disagreed, because even some normal turtles like same side. However, a form should NOT be in severe trouble if it gets opposite side, b/c that's a dependency on luck of the sides, not a preference, and that's against general turtle standards.

[Moose]

If you'll notice monkus I never said the world "definition" in any of my posts, I simply said you have changed the "idea" not "defintion".

I back this up because you often claim that a turtle needs a stone to be a "true turtle" form. This is not the case at all.

I don't completely disagree with what you say about the turtle form. But at the same time I think most players have a 1-sided view on what a turtle is.

Just for the record, the stone golem was rarely used on the field for a few weeks on FPS after it came out.

[monkus]

If you'll notice monkus I never said the world "definition" in any of my posts, I simply said you have changed the "idea" not "defintion".

I back this up because you often claim that a turtle needs a stone to be a "true turtle" form. This is not the case at all.

I don't completely disagree with what you say about the turtle form. But at the same time I think most players have a 1-sided view on what a turtle is.

Just for the record, the stone golem was rarely used on the field for a few weeks on FPS after it came out.

*Sigh*. I don't claim that. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Logic for each reason:
...
Stone golem: While some forms can be turtles without the stonie, it's just too hard to regulate them, so the definition should include this golem. It's also how most turtles are recognized.

(bold added for emphasis)

Also, idea and definition are extremely closely linked, so don't try and make distinctions now. I'm not defining turtles anymore, I'm just trying to make feasible regulations for tournaments. If I'm perpetuating any negative concepts of turtles, sorry, but this is for the rules of tourneys and games only, not for definitional purposes.

[Moose]

*Sigh*. I don't claim that. Please don't put words into my mouth.


(bold added for emphasis)

Also, idea and definition are extremely closely linked, so don't try and make distinctions now. I'm not defining turtles anymore, I'm just trying to make feasible regulations for tournaments. If I'm perpetuating any negative concepts of turtles, sorry, but this is for the rules of tourneys and games only, not for definitional purposes.

If you check your "Monkus's guide to rules of the turtle formation (was final definition)". You stated that a turtle needed a stone golem to be "offically" a turtle form, i'm not putting words into your mouth monkus, and I know you've changed some concepts of what you said before.

I'm still not saying that your trying to make a defintion for gameplay of turtles, however when you say that these rules should be followed for tourny and gameplay, your kind of "defining perameters" on how turtle games are played. Again this isn't a bad idea for FPS considering the differences between Legends and FPS, so i'm not critizing or bashing your idea, but if your going to suggest rules to be played by, you could always add in a sub-section about Legends gameplay, on rev i'm seeing more people starting to ask for "Legends styles games" or "Legends Turtle Games".

If you want me to add in some rules for your topic, i'd be more then happy to write something for you on the basis of "other" turtle type rule games. :)

[Terps rock]

Um, why ask for turtle games, why not use the 1337357 form you can find, if it is a turtle so be it, if not, oh well.

I mean hell, If you want to turtle go ahead.

[monkus]

Yall think this should be sticky'd and be the standard for '06? I'd like it if we didn't have to create new rules for each tourney.

[wolf-boy]

No real need for the sticky. If people prefer to use this form, then they refer to it as alpha rules, they're not gonna come rummaging through the forums looking for styles of turtling.

[monkus]

No real need for the sticky. If people prefer to use this form, then they refer to it as alpha rules, they're not gonna come rummaging through the forums looking for styles of turtling.

But no one will know what they are unless sticky'd :(

[Wayfaerer]

You're just desperate for some recognition monk http://jconserv.net/swforums/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif

[Dajae]

Monk has recognition oozing out of his ears... :bigsmile:

White, creamy recognition.... :p

- Daj

[monkus]

You're just desperate for some recognition monk http://jconserv.net/swforums/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif

If I'd wanted recognition, I'd call them "Monkus rules" or something. I just want a standard for turtle rules (and the bragging rights for making them)

[andalite]

*Cough* Sure ;) *cough* Don't you already have a set of rules called the Monkus turtle rules or something like that? Not that you gave them that name, but people named it that anyways.

[monkus]

*Cough* Sure ;) *cough* Don't you already have a set of rules called the Monkus turtle rules or something like that? Not that you gave them that name, but people named it that anyways.

But half the people don't know what those are, and the other half think they're something they aren't. I want a REAL standard that people VOTED on.

[LosPollos]

Why not a stickied thread of the different variations of turt/formation rule sets? (eg. Monkus Rules and Alpha Turt Rules) Just an idea

Well anyway, looks like some of the catagories are gonna be very close, it'll be interesting how it turns out....

[Dajae]

Why not a stickied thread of the different variations of turt/formation rule sets? (eg. Monkus Rules and Alpha Turt Rules) Just an idea

Well anyway, looks like some of the catagories are gonna be very close, it'll be interesting how it turns out....

Thats a great idea :)

A total compliation of Ideas, Formations (i.e.; examples of), etc. It'd be good, especially for future tournaments... Which has previously already been said.

Monkus, your my idol....

- Daj

[monkus]

Okay, if people posted different things they'd want on the thread here, I'll compile it and post it. Go for it.

[bludhoundz]

I think that it would be ok to put 1 ranged piece on the front row sometimes.. but my mood depends.

Pyros.. I don't even wanna see one on the third row, I'd say back 2 rows.

Turtles (I think) can have units spanning all across the board - but I still have to see an effective one that goes past 6 rows.

[monkus]

I think that it would be ok to put 1 ranged piece on the front row sometimes.. but my mood depends.

Pyros.. I don't even wanna see one on the third row, I'd say back 2 rows.

Turtles (I think) can have units spanning all across the board - but I still have to see an effective one that goes past 6 rows.

Eh, if pyros can't be in the third row, then corner turtles can't use them at all. I gave them that leeway.

I made a "center" turtle off the top of my head that didn't obey that rule but obeyed the rest:
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/9163/7columns6wq.jpg

Cleric isn't vulnerable to corner turtles, furgon can reach either side, dragon can help either side, same side turtles don't get the same advantage of a quick rush, and opposite side turtles don't get as much time to prepare. How's that for a good form? And it's basically in all ways a turtle. It would just suck against rushes.

[Dajae]

I think that it would be ok to put 1 ranged piece on the front row sometimes.. but my mood depends.

Pyros.. I don't even wanna see one on the third row, I'd say back 2 rows.

Turtles (I think) can have units spanning all across the board - but I still have to see an effective one that goes past 6 rows.

Don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a GA front row.. Let alone a Mud or similiar..

Basically because, most True Old School Turtlers have their Cleric in the back corner, with the Stone on the left/right. A Mud quaking infront of the unit infront of the Cleric puts the Cleric in death zone. Unless ofcourse, a Furgy was on hand.....

......

....

Meh, I see your point. Yeah, one ranged probably wouldn't be bad... :D

- Daj

[monkus]

Both the column issue AND the DT frontrow issue are DEAD tied. There's only 9 days left until it closes, and I'm just going by votes, so you guys REALLY NEED TO VOTE so we can get these rules out. PLEASE GET ALL YOUR CLANMATES/FRIENDS TO VOTE!

[bludhoundz]

Eh, if pyros can't be in the third row, then corner turtles can't use them at all. I gave them that leeway.

I made a "center" turtle off the top of my head that didn't obey that rule but obeyed the rest:
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/9163/7columns6wq.jpg

Cleric isn't vulnerable to corner turtles, furgon can reach either side, dragon can help either side, same side turtles don't get the same advantage of a quick rush, and opposite side turtles don't get as much time to prepare. How's that for a good form? And it's basically in all ways a turtle. It would just suck against rushes.

Your center turtle may be good in theory, but yet again, I have yet to see someone use one effectively. And if they can, why stop them?

[JesusCraig]

I want to know why the Golem Ambusher is banned instead of restricted to certain rows, if the opponent allows a golem ambusher to cross the entire field to attack the cleric, he deserves to lose it.

Theoretically the ambusher was meant as a compliment to the furgon, you can ensnare the enemy and then pummel him with no fear of repercussions. This is the use the ambusher was supposed to have, and as such has a definitive role in a turtle, however due to its abusability it is used as a cleric killer in the front row instead. However you could limit the abusability by constraining where the Golem Ambusher is allowed to be placed, that way you need not eliminate a viable unit because of viable abuses. Also it would introduce a new outlook onto the ambusher which would be considerably more favorable.

[monkus]

Your center turtle may be good in theory, but yet again, I have yet to see someone use one effectively. And if they can, why stop them?

I don't think they should be stopped, which is why I voted against the column rule. But majority rules is majority rules, and I'm willing to go against my own decision to support the will of the TAO community.

I want to know why the Golem Ambusher is banned instead of restricted to certain rows, if the opponent allows a golem ambusher to cross the entire field to attack the cleric, he deserves to lose it.
[...]
Also it would introduce a new outlook onto the ambusher which would be considerably more favorable.

Nope. First, keep in mind, the ambusher doesn't need to cross the entire field. If the ambusher must be within stoning distance...:
http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/3844/turtrushh8hh.jpg
(This is a form that I was once beaten with)
Now, let's say you're a bit harsher. Back three rows. Switch ambusher and muddy. Even stricter? Move frosty over and stick busher there. Basically, from that point on, same side games he's still 2 moves away from cleric shot. That means that if I, using that form, take the aggressive, you not only have to repel everything else, but you have 3 turns to stop my ambusher from killing your cleric. People won't look at it differently.

[JesusCraig]

You limit the DSM in the same way and it is even more devestating in the scenario you describe, treat it as a mage, it is no different then any of the restrictions you place on it. However it was my intent to say it must be in the backrow, so that it is obvious that the busher and furgon need to be used in conjunction. It seems unfair to me that you limit the turtle game to every unit but one, for no better reason then the fact that the unit can be used abusively in the same way the mages can.

[Cuathon]

back three rows DSM is way fairer than the same for a GA

[monkus]

You limit the DSM in the same way and it is even more devestating in the scenario you describe, treat it as a mage, it is no different then any of the restrictions you place on it. However it was my intent to say it must be in the backrow, so that it is obvious that the busher and furgon need to be used in conjunction. It seems unfair to me that you limit the turtle game to every unit but one, for no better reason then the fact that the unit can be used abusively in the same way the mages can.

Mages and ambushers are ENTIRELY different. Mages are meant for large amounts of damage with low health. They're unblockable, but don't block often either. They deal tons of damage, but can't take it in.

The ambusher is unbalanced, because:
It's an infiltrator that isn't commital. The muddy and wisp are excellent infiltrators, but using them guarantees their involvement and risk, and therefore allows them to be killed. You can't freeze/furg against an ambusher, because it's too far away. It doesn't have to commit and jeopardize itself to break focus or kill vitals.
It's a ranged, massive damage dealer that can also take damage. Mages die quickly. Muddy has to be pretty close for damage dealing purposes. Scouts have LOS, and can't take a large amount of damage (2 dragon shots kill them with a heal. 2 dragon shots don't even kill an ambusher without a heal), plus they don't even deal 20.

Finally, my most powerful critique is that it makes defensive turtling impossible. Defensive turtling is where a player uses impedements (furgon, unit blocking) with Frosty and hinders attacks while killing them off. As I've witnessed, 70% of GOOD turtle games always see one player taking the offensive and one player on the defensive. The two positions can switch, but not until endgame do they really become blurred.
The only exceptions are where turtle games disintegrate into rush vs. rush, or when neither player is willing to attack.
Defensive turtling is always inherently at the disadvantage, only because the stonie and cleric are in jeopardy, significantly undermining the army's strength. However, the two are relatively even, because the defensive player can make use of the frosty, and can complicate attacks with the furgon and other careful positioning. The ambusher wrecks this balance, because a player cannot use this type of defending against assaults when the frosty can be defocused by a unit halfway across the field that hasn't even entered the realm of the defender. Thus the defender cannot stop it without mounting an offense capable of removing the ambusher quickly enough, forcing the defensive player into an offense, creating a rush vs. rush scenario. No player can defend, and turtle games are just rush vs. rush.

[Moose]

I'm still seeing to much biast opinions from monkus on this.

I still agree that the ambusher does push the balance on FPS a bit off from what turtles should be, but from reading over your current posts, you seem intent on making this a defintion and not a "guide-line".

Now true I don't often ask for ga turtle games, but probably because i'm rarely in the mood to play turtles in the fashion that they were designed to be used for.

Basically that means that a turtle "is" a turtle as long as it's units are huddled in a corner or at the back row of the oppenents field. It doesn't mean that there has to be restrictions on how to play, thats simply a preference in what kind of mood i'm in.

If you really want to have fun turtling, then stop making definition threads and just ask in games for those restrictions, otherwise stop bitching.

[monkus]

I'm still seeing to much biast opinions from monkus on this.

I still agree that the ambusher does push the balance on FPS a bit off from what turtles should be, but from reading over your current posts, you seem intent on making this a defintion and not a "guide-line".

Now true I don't often ask for ga turtle games, but probably because i'm rarely in the mood to play turtles in the fashion that they were designed to be used for.

Basically that means that a turtle "is" a turtle as long as it's units are huddled in a corner or at the back row of the oppenents field. It doesn't mean that there has to be restrictions on how to play, thats simply a preference in what kind of mood i'm in.

If you really want to have fun turtling, then stop making definition threads and just ask in games for those restrictions, otherwise stop bitching.

Eh, other way around. Definitions can be vague, sets of rules can't. I want to make a standard for turtle tourneys for the next year. I also don't want to have to explain 4 rules before a game. But I understand where you're coming from. I just want something tourneys can go by.

[Match Strike]

Monkus is still bitter about the time I stoned a dsm, ambusher, mud, and scout against him... stone in front of cleric.

Get over it monk. :p

[monkus]

15 minutes left...VOTE VOTE VOTE. I want good rules for '06.

[imagination]

im sorry but arent these alomost exactly like monkus rules? why not make a set of rules that is different?

[andalite]

Maybe Monkus's first set of rules was just good enough that everyone agreed with them, even without a poll ;)

[monkus]

im sorry but arent these alomost exactly like monkus rules? why not make a set of rules that is different?

Eh, I like the idea of democracy. Plus, the 6 columns rule is something I never even considered, but obviously they like it. Also, I had no idea it would turn out this way.

Poll closed.
The 2006 Alpha Turtle Rules:

1. Stone golem in the back row or second to back row corner, with 4 units next to it ready to be stoned.
2. No mobile ranged units in the front row.
3. All mages (Pyro, DSM, DMW) must be in the back 3 rows
4. All units must be in 6 adjacent columns, where one of those columns is next to a wall.
5. No golem ambusher.

[Moose]

Eh, I like the idea of democracy. Plus, the 6 columns rule is something I never even considered, but obviously they like it. Also, I had no idea it would turn out this way.

Poll closed.
The 2006 Alpha Turtle Rules:

1. Stone golem in the back row or second to back row corner, with 4 units next to it ready to be stoned.
2. No mobile ranged units in the front row.
3. All mages (Pyro, DSM, DMW) must be in the back 3 rows
4. All units must be in 6 adjacent columns, where one of those columns is next to a wall.
5. No golem ambusher.

This isn't democracy, you've come up with the "suggestions" if you really wanted input on what they stood for you would allow others to come up with things, you've just tried to generalize things with your own experience.

Monkus, stop trying to make rules that just lead to you bitching about how turtles have become unfair due to the fact that you can't adapt to changes in TAO's units and gameplay.

[Bottle]

The final Alpha Turtle Rules are:

Stone Golem in back row or second row corners only.

No mobile ranged units in the front row. (Although the DT is still open to interpretation.)

All mages must be in back 3 rows.

Units restricted to 6 columns adjacent to one wall, although this is not very unanimous.

[monkus]

This isn't democracy, you've come up with the "suggestions" if you really wanted input on what they stood for you would allow others to come up with things, you've just tried to generalize things with your own experience.

Monkus, stop trying to make rules that just lead to you bitching about how turtles have become unfair due to the fact that you can't adapt to changes in TAO's units and gameplay.

Do you have any other suggestions? You didn't speak at ALL during the vote. I could've done a revote with new suggestions if you had POSTED perhaps once.

[imagination]

i find that moose's purpose on these forums is to try and make arrogant posts in hopes of sounding smart by belittling others. *goes to try and find the thread where he said he was just going away for good

[Moose]

Do you have any other suggestions? You didn't speak at ALL during the vote. I could've done a revote with new suggestions if you had POSTED perhaps once.

I've given you suggestions before, you've chosen to ignore them.

But to refresh your memory...

Turtle formations must consist of units huddled or placed strategically in a defensive posture, placing all the units at the front to one side is an anti-rush, huddling units in 1 area at the front of your board is an anti-turtle.

I'll also add this in...

A stone golem is not needed to make a turtle formation

Example: http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/2034/nostone8cj.jpg

Actually imagination, i'll leave that responsibility in your capable hands.

[Bottle]

Moose, that's not a turtle, that's an antirush.

That said, a stone golem does not mean that the form is a turtle either. My Legends anti has a stone golem in. Whenever it loses to a turtle on Legends, I always ask for a turtle game, and my opponent normally seems to think we just had one. It's most peculiar.

[~GooseR~]

Yea moose's turtle is a little shawdy

[Moose]

Yea moose's turtle is a little shawdy

Moose, that's not a turtle, that's an antirush.

Actually before the stone golem came out, that was considered a genuine turtle formation, the only difference is that some of the units there hadn't come out yet.

This is an anti-rush (note: An anti-rush is also a same sided rush)

Example:


The closest my non-stone turtle example comes to is a freestyle/anti-turtle form. But it's still good and I allow the turtle example form when playing turtles with others.


Edit: Imageshack is deciding to be a mofo, so when it actually works i'll upload the image :).

[monkus]

Okay moose, how about this. You try to figure out a set of rules for turtles that doesn't include the stone golem, still keeps rushes out (including one-sided rushes), has no such abuse potential, and would be feasibly used in a tournament. Until then, we're gunna stick by my set of rules for tourneys, and if you want to use your little formation as a turtle, you can ask the guy running the tournament for an exception.

[Moose]

So exactly how does that form become a hassle for stoner turtlers, if anything it gives the person without a stone a even bigger challenge seeing as 3 of the units (berserker, wisp and mud) are virtually undefended from powered up units.

Look it's a fact that I rarely agree with you on turtling seeing as I really don't get your logic in "rules" and "regulations" for turtling. Sure the ambusher maybe, but changing the context of turtle forms for tourny plays to include a stone golem no matter what is not what the turtle is all about, infact the turtle was originally just a grey form huddled in a defensive posture before any of the units started showing up.

If you want me to agree with a set of rules, you give me examples of how that so called "anti-rush" can be abused against turtles and such and then I might just give you a more detailed posting on this debate, until then, these rules are just plain silly.

[The Hand]

who ever voted on no restrictions on mages is screwing with the system!

[monkus]

So exactly how does that form become a hassle for stoner turtlers, if anything it gives the person without a stone a even bigger challenge seeing as 3 of the units (berserker, wisp and mud) are virtually undefended from powered up units.

Look it's a fact that I rarely agree with you on turtling seeing as I really don't get your logic in "rules" and "regulations" for turtling. Sure the ambusher maybe, but changing the context of turtle forms for tourny plays to include a stone golem no matter what is not what the turtle is all about, infact the turtle was originally just a grey form huddled in a defensive posture before any of the units started showing up.

If you want me to agree with a set of rules, you give me examples of how that so called "anti-rush" can be abused against turtles and such and then I might just give you a more detailed posting on this debate, until then, these rules are just plain silly.

First, I said you could ask for exceptions from tournament heads to use anti-rushes, but these must pass a specific set of criteria within the tourney head's mind. Quite simply, it's almost impossible to regulate anti-rushes from turtles in a general set of rules, while stonie-turtles aren't that difficult.

How can they be abused? Simple. Two frontrow scouts and a frontrow dragon, teamed with a few knights, muddy in the second or third row from the front, and a few support units. That'll wreck havoc on ANY of the modern day turtles same side.

Finally, I think most of us don't really care how the turtle started. All that matters is what it's like TODAY. And today, the VAST majority of turtles include stone golems. If you want an exception, go ahead. Plea with a tourney leader, but for the rest of us who like the stonie in the turtles, we'll settle for a few nice easy rules so we don't have to inspect every single form entering our tournaments.

[Moose]

First, I said you could ask for exceptions from tournament heads to use anti-rushes, but these must pass a specific set of criteria within the tourney head's mind. Quite simply, it's almost impossible to regulate anti-rushes from turtles in a general set of rules, while stonie-turtles aren't that difficult.

Not true, you are just putting restrictions on how to regulate the formation specifications, thus making it impossible to give exceptions or manage them so that they do not exceed or go over the problems that will arrise if you use a turtle without a stone golem.


How can they be abused? Simple. Two frontrow scouts and a frontrow dragon, teamed with a few knights, muddy in the second or third row from the front, and a few support units. That'll wreck havoc on ANY of the modern day turtles same side.

First off, I specifically stated that using a turtle form without a stonie needed to be huddled in the back row in a defensive posture, not offensive. The form you are now refering to is an anti-turtle, or same-sided compressed rush form. This is not what I mean by that and yes, if I did use that form it would be considered unfair, but if the units are positioned in the back rows and away from the front lines, there is no potentional for it to be abused.

Finally, I think most of us don't really care how the turtle started. All that matters is what it's like TODAY. And today, the VAST majority of turtles include stone golems. If you want an exception, go ahead. Plea with a tourney leader, but for the rest of us who like the stonie in the turtles, we'll settle for a few nice easy rules so we don't have to inspect every single form entering our tournaments.

I don't care what you believe in, the turtle is not to be ruled out with the restrictions and guidelines for tourny plays that you have deemed fit just because you can't adapt to changes in TAO's unit arsenal. TODAY turtles MOSTLY use stone golems, but THAT doesn't mean they NEED "set in stone" so to speak that there must be stonies for tourny games. I don't need to plea with any tourny leader because half the time a) there set up by n00bs, b) if you make a tourny that puts restrictions on forms, then they never will truely be turtle formations and c) Your so called rules before this new thread of yours, didn't really help much with the Legends vs FPS tourny, afterall if people complain so much about the game, why bother playing them at all.

You are not in any position to tell me that my arguements don't have valid points, the turtle has evolved, but the basic principal is still the same, if you weren't so arrogant and object to those who have been here the longest and have seen what the turtle stands for, you wouldn't be so quick to make these biast rules that are both not nessecary and not fit for such a great tribute to Tactics Arena Online.

[monkus]

Sorry if this is a bit late, but I didn't notice the response until today, and it's always fun arguing with Moose.


Not true, you are just putting restrictions on how to regulate the formation specifications, thus making it impossible to give exceptions or manage them so that they do not exceed or go over the problems that will arrise if you use a turtle without a stone golem.

I'm afraid this made little sense. The reason that I'm creating general restrictions is so we can have acceptable formations without having to check each and every one of them. However, the latter method, I.E. checking a formation and deciding whether it's fair or not individually, can ALWAYS take precedence. The idea here is if any form doesn't violate the Alpha Rules, it's probably okay, and doesn't need to be checked (I haven't yet seen a real rush that passes the Alpha rules). If it DOES violate some of them, then you can simply have it checked individually, like it would be in the first place. Exceptions would be on a case-by-case basis, so they'd always be managable.



First off, I specifically stated that using a turtle form without a stonie needed to be huddled in the back row in a defensive posture, not offensive. The form you are now refering to is an anti-turtle, or same-sided compressed rush form. This is not what I mean by that and yes, if I did use that form it would be considered unfair, but if the units are positioned in the back rows and away from the front lines, there is no potentional for it to be abused.

Here's the problem Moose. "Defensive Posture" is extremely vague. My anti-rush is in a "defensive posture" in my eyes, even though it has 3 frontrow knights, a frontrow dragon and a scout right behind that. It's in a "defensive posture" because they are placed there to block LOS. Could I rush the hell out of a same-side turtle really easily too? Yes.
If you're now saying that they need to be "away from the front lines", how far away are we talking? Do you expect all nonstonie turtles to keep scouts in the back 2 rows? Back 3 rows? I made these rules because vague turtle specifications are almost always abusable. Perhaps if you clarify what "defensive posture" means in a way that isn't so vague, people would be willing to accept your definitions in tournaments.



I don't care what you believe in, the turtle is not to be ruled out with the restrictions and guidelines for tourny plays that you have deemed fit just because you can't adapt to changes in TAO's unit arsenal. TODAY turtles MOSTLY use stone golems, but THAT doesn't mean they NEED "set in stone" so to speak that there must be stonies for tourny games. I don't need to plea with any tourny leader because half the time a) there set up by n00bs, b) if you make a tourny that puts restrictions on forms, then they never will truely be turtle formations and c) Your so called rules before this new thread of yours, didn't really help much with the Legends vs FPS tourny, afterall if people complain so much about the game, why bother playing them at all.

Of course it's not set in stone. That's why I'm telling you to ask for exceptions. You don't want to talk to tourney leaders? A) Most tourneys are run by excellent players, such as Mith, Allstar, Mith/Xerent for the CAU, Ironhorse, etc. Plus, I'm sure even less-adept tourney leaders would be willing to make exceptions pretty easily.
B) How do restrictions take away from what the true turtle formations are? Are you honestly telling me you'd rather play in a tournament that allows THIS (http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/5378/aturtle7wz.jpg) form than play in a tournament that has a few rules most people's turtles fit into anyway?
C) Of course it didn't work with the Legends vs. FPS tourney, because Legends has different turtling standards. These rules are for FPS tourneys. Many legenders use a stonie right in front of the cleric. Here, we think that's a rush in disguise, considering the ease in attacking same sides with it. Also, no one really knew what my rules were before. I've heard people say "Yeah, monkus rules, that means no ambusher or dsm", and it was annoying. These are clear, concise, and sure, it's a bit overrestricting, especially for those who want to use stony-less turtles, but until you can provide me with a nice set of clear restrictions for stony-less turtles, I feel they're too abusable to be allowed in without individual checking, which is why all you need to do is go check with the tournament leader. If you don't like that, too bad. I'm sure you'll survive.


You are not in any position to tell me that my arguements don't have valid points, the turtle has evolved, but the basic principal is still the same, if you weren't so arrogant and object to those who have been here the longest and have seen what the turtle stands for, you wouldn't be so quick to make these biast rules that are both not nessecary and not fit for such a great tribute to Tactics Arena Online.

Your arguments have valid points. I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying my arguments have even better points.
So I'm arrogant for objecting to those who have been here longer than me, but you're not arrogant for objecting to someone who's been here pretty long anyway? What makes the few months you've been around more than me so important? Am I incapable of learning as much as you have in a period of time that's a little shorter?
I know what the turtle stands for. Originally, it was a defensive form that countered the spreads and other forms that existed. It used its corner-setup to gain an advantage when players couldn't make use of all of their units immediately. If you're going to turtle in a freestyle game, fulfilling the ORIGINAL intent of the turtle (which is playing against nonturtle forms that are spread out, like most rushes today), then you need not listen to these rules. However, the fact that turtle vs. turtle games are nothing like the original use of the turtle, I wouldn't exactly say that I'm destroying the meaning. Also, keep in mind, the game's here to have some fun with. I don't like facing rushes in turtle games. It's not fun for both players. Most people I've talked to agree with me.
These rules aren't biased. You guys voted on them, how could they be biased by me if I didn't control the vote in any way? Sure, sure, I picked what people voted on. Notice, however, I got those selections from looking at every single set of turtle rules implemented in the last few months. THAT'S how I made my voting selections. There might be a little biased, but it's not fair to label them entirely biased when everyone voted.
They're completely necessary for tournaments, too. I would probably win 50% of my turtle games with that form above. Maybe more if I got lucky with same-sides games. Do you really want to turn turtle games into that?
If you did create the turtle, then your tribute to tactics arena is a wonderful formation that many people love and adore. I hope that my tribute can be a set of rules that allows people to play turtle vs. turtle games without interference from abusers, in a way that permits them to make creative forms within a set of fair guidelines. If you disagree, that's your freedom, but I do think the rules are a fine addition to the Tactics Arena Community.

[Moose]

I'm afraid this made little sense. The reason that I'm creating general restrictions is so we can have acceptable formations without having to check each and every one of them. However, the latter method, I.E. checking a formation and deciding whether it's fair or not individually, can ALWAYS take precedence. The idea here is if any form doesn't violate the Alpha Rules, it's probably okay, and doesn't need to be checked (I haven't yet seen a real rush that passes the Alpha rules). If it DOES violate some of them, then you can simply have it checked individually, like it would be in the first place. Exceptions would be on a case-by-case basis, so they'd always be managable.

So basically your saying it's ok to have a basis of a formation rule guide-line, yet you are allowed to go around it in specific cases? K...well that doesn't even work out seeing as if a tourny is said to use YOUR RULES, and yet somehow they are violated, you can work around it...meaning that there not really there as rules but just observational purposes. If this is the case, then don't call them rules or guide lines, call them "Opinated Procedures".

Here's the problem Moose. "Defensive Posture" is extremely vague. My anti-rush is in a "defensive posture" in my eyes, even though it has 3 frontrow knights, a frontrow dragon and a scout right behind that. It's in a "defensive posture" because they are placed there to block LOS. Could I rush the hell out of a same-side turtle really easily too? Yes.
If you're now saying that they need to be "away from the front lines", how far away are we talking? Do you expect all nonstonie turtles to keep scouts in the back 2 rows? Back 3 rows? I made these rules because vague turtle specifications are almost always abusable. Perhaps if you clarify what "defensive posture" means in a way that isn't so vague, people would be willing to accept your definitions in tournaments.

I specifically stated that a defensive posture was at the back corner or back side corner of the game board. So if you see it was a defensive posture by sticking heavily armoured units at the front of the board and expect it to be used for defense is clearly a stupid reasoning behind your comments. Again, I said the back of the board, which unless your iq is under 50, means the back of the game board, where the core of your units are, so the first 3 rows from the edge are where ur units should be huddled, and not in a way that makes it eaisly turn into a rush or anti-rush. So again, thats not that hard to have it mistaken.

Of course it's not set in stone. That's why I'm telling you to ask for exceptions. You don't want to talk to tourney leaders? A) Most tourneys are run by excellent players, such as Mith, Allstar, Mith/Xerent for the CAU, Ironhorse, etc. Plus, I'm sure even less-adept tourney leaders would be willing to make exceptions pretty easily.
B) How do restrictions take away from what the true turtle formations are? Are you honestly telling me you'd rather play in a tournament that allows THIS form than play in a tournament that has a few rules most people's turtles fit into anyway?
C) Of course it didn't work with the Legends vs. FPS tourney, because Legends has different turtling standards. These rules are for FPS tourneys. Many legenders use a stonie right in front of the cleric. Here, we think that's a rush in disguise, considering the ease in attacking same sides with it. Also, no one really knew what my rules were before. I've heard people say "Yeah, monkus rules, that means no ambusher or dsm", and it was annoying. These are clear, concise, and sure, it's a bit overrestricting, especially for those who want to use stony-less turtles, but until you can provide me with a nice set of clear restrictions for stony-less turtles, I feel they're too abusable to be allowed in without individual checking, which is why all you need to do is go check with the tournament leader. If you don't like that, too bad. I'm sure you'll survive.

A)I never stated that tourny leaders are blind or foolish for using your rules or choosing to have a variety of turtling based on YOUR IDEA'S. Exceptions are eaisly made, but like I just said, if you try to pass these off as rules or guidelines, then how can you always break or bend the rules for individual problems. It makes no sense at all that you could follow these and unless you included an un-written rule that says the rules are nothing more then opinions based on others, might change my arguement, but otherwise it's still contradictive and biased.
B)As for that form you showed me, why would you even consider that a turtle? it doesn't even fit in with your guidelines. So of course playing with it wouldn't work, now if the units were spread a lil more defensively instead of huddled at the front, yes it would be agreeable, but when i said huddled in a defensive posture, I also included at the back of the gameboard, that is obviously not that back. So no, I wouldn't play it considering it was a turtle. Besides you chose to make that form as part as your explanation, not me.
C)Well of course the tourny can't except anything because your playing with 2 different styles, and you said they were for FPS tournies, so basically your telling me that that tourny was a FPS organized tourny not a joint venture, if you wanted to have a real guideline for anything on that matter, we would have been able to have a mix for that exception, but instead it was set in stone on how it was to be run. Nothings abusable unless you start sticking rush units at the front of a form and just take out the oppenents form. So yes they may work for FPS tournies, but the point I was making was that one contributing factor to the failure (Or win for Legends) was that your rules contradicted the entire principal of joint ventures.

[Moose]

Your arguments have valid points. I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying my arguments have even better points.
So I'm arrogant for objecting to those who have been here longer than me, but you're not arrogant for objecting to someone who's been here pretty long anyway? What makes the few months you've been around more than me so important? Am I incapable of learning as much as you have in a period of time that's a little shorter?
I know what the turtle stands for. Originally, it was a defensive form that countered the spreads and other forms that existed. It used its corner-setup to gain an advantage when players couldn't make use of all of their units immediately. If you're going to turtle in a freestyle game, fulfilling the ORIGINAL intent of the turtle (which is playing against nonturtle forms that are spread out, like most rushes today), then you need not listen to these rules. However, the fact that turtle vs. turtle games are nothing like the original use of the turtle, I wouldn't exactly say that I'm destroying the meaning. Also, keep in mind, the game's here to have some fun with. I don't like facing rushes in turtle games. It's not fun for both players. Most people I've talked to agree with me.
These rules aren't biased. You guys voted on them, how could they be biased by me if I didn't control the vote in any way? Sure, sure, I picked what people voted on. Notice, however, I got those selections from looking at every single set of turtle rules implemented in the last few months. THAT'S how I made my voting selections. There might be a little biased, but it's not fair to label them entirely biased when everyone voted.
They're completely necessary for tournaments, too. I would probably win 50% of my turtle games with that form above. Maybe more if I got lucky with same-sides games. Do you really want to turn turtle games into that?
If you did create the turtle, then your tribute to tactics arena is a wonderful formation that many people love and adore. I hope that my tribute can be a set of rules that allows people to play turtle vs. turtle games without interference from abusers, in a way that permits them to make creative forms within a set of fair guidelines. If you disagree, that's your freedom, but I do think the rules are a fine addition to the Tactics Arena Community.

Ok, firstly my opinions on turtling carry more weight considering those few months was the beginning of everything for TAO, when you showed up TAO has just finshed it's first big leap into the golden era. Things were fixed to work and the game was balanced, yes with the addition of new units turtle vs turtles changed, but the general principal that the turtle was the most adaptable form to new changes still stands today, the only reason you bitch about making rules or guides to counter problems that you obviously haven't been able to solve with the turtle is because you can't handle the ambusher, yes it's a pain, yes it's a annoying lil unit, but life goes on, and there are ways to beat it when playing a rush vs turtle, most people just choose to ignore finding new tactics and simply complain. So really, you have no idea what the turtle stands for if you need to be making core specific rules that restrict access, even if you say "we can make exceptions" thats just saying that the rules aren't rules, afterall rules are meant to be obeyed, not bent for every specific case.
Doesn't matter how people voted for the rules, they were still YOUR WORDS, if you wanted to have a more un-biased result you should have asked for people to post in this thread, then add in a poll for the choices being said. So no matter what you say, there still biased. Saying that you looked at every single turtle forms you've seen in the past few months doesn't mean that it determines the standerds, it's how formations are used that ultimately wins a game.
An opinated standpoint from a turtler would be a fine tribute, but an overall rule/guide to the turtles when you still don't know it's meaning is just wrong. Your free to have as many opinions as you like, and if people want to follow your idea's about the forms thats there choice, but making this an absolute is just wrong, and like I said, my views have much more experience then yours no matter what.
P.S: Yes I did give the original write up for the turtle formation on the old Legends forums. So yes, it is fair to say that I invented the way turtling was meant to be played, but I must also give credit to Quicksandslowly, AlphaEcho, TheRapizt, Dragonscall and King for helping me develop it into a genuine part of TAO.

[Match Strike]

That said, a stone golem does not mean that the form is a turtle either. My Legends anti has a stone golem in. Whenever it loses to a turtle on Legends, I always ask for a turtle game, and my opponent normally seems to think we just had one. It's most peculiar.
This point is key, so I'd like to bump it up to the front of the thread.

I also have an anti with a stone golem, however, the stone golem is on the third row, with scouts on the second row, DT on the first. It absolutely destroys same side turtles, but that isn't really fair, because it is not a turtle.

A common reaction when people see it is "Wow, turtling in freestyle?... sort of..."

I like that form because it combines attributes of three of the four main styles of play (rush, anti, and turtle). It doesn't have a DSM though. :bigsmile:

[monkus]

Okay, instead of a point-by-point, I'm gunna go with a big picture here. Moose, here's the ultimate paradox of turtle rules: No one likes playing against rushes in turtle games. Everyone wants their favorite turtle to be allowed in turtle games. However, no set of rules so far will "allow all turtles" and "stop all rushes".
My guarantee with the alpha rules is that they will not permit any rushes into turtle games. The "allows all turtles" part is up to tourney leaders. It's better than a vague definition that includes the "allows all turtles" part, but has room for abuse.

I specifically stated that a defensive posture was at the back corner or back side corner of the game board. So if you see it was a defensive posture by sticking heavily armoured units at the front of the board and expect it to be used for defense is clearly a stupid reasoning behind your comments. Again, I said the back of the board, which unless your iq is under 50, means the back of the game board, where the core of your units are, so the first 3 rows from the edge are where ur units should be huddled, and not in a way that makes it eaisly turn into a rush or anti-rush. So again, thats not that hard to have it mistaken.
Oh? What about this (http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/354/temp1px.jpg)? It's pretty clearly a turtle, but it has some units up front.

The form I showed you is clearly not a turtle. However, we need rules so people can't SAY it's a turtle.


A few final points I'd like you all to consider:
-A tournament requires efficient running and hopefully as little stress on the tournament leader as possible, so (s)he can do everything necessary in a short amount of time. With a large tournament, examining every single formation would take ages.
-Turtles are an abstract conception. As moose pointed out, they were originally conceived as something that not all people agree with today. There exist aggressive turtles, defensive turtles, stony-less turtles, etc.
-No set of rules could ever allow all turtles and stop all rushes. Vague rules, which make use of terms such as 'defensive posture' or 'prefer opposite sides' are unacceptable in tournament guidelines, because a person could view them to mean seperate things, or pretend to view them as something to gain advantages.
-A set of rules, that's necessarily exclusive of certain forms which are entirely acceptable turtles but permits no rushes, would only require tournament leaders to inspect requested exceptions.
-A set of rules, that permits all or almost all acceptable turtles but also gives room for abuse or rushes entered into the turtle division, would require the tournament leaders to inspect ALL turtles to ensure no abuse occurs.

With that said, it's more preferable to have a set of "rules", and I use the term rules abstractly because you're right, they are more guidelines than unbreakable rules, that keep rushes out no matter what. You can argue all day about how many turtles I'm missing, but that doesn't change the general facts.
Also, regardless of the existence of stony-less turtles, I have yet to see anyone actually use one in a tournament turtle game. That's not to say there's anything wrong with it, but it's just very unlikely, and you can't argue the fact that most people turtle with stonies.

Here's my final determination: Because the Alpha Turtle rules keep out as many rushes as necessary, and permit a tremendous amount of turtles used generally by the Tactics Arena community, they ought to be the acceptable standard for Turtling in FPS tournaments. As stony-less turtles are both incredibly varied and rather rare, my lack of consideration towards them is acceptable.



As a post script for moose: You say I don't understand turtles. I think I have a pretty good idea about them. My idea may be different from the original conception of its creators, but most people these days view it as something different. But we don't need to fight about this. These rules aren't absolute. They're intended for tourney leaders who want to use them. They're my words, often copied from someone ELSE's turtle tourney rules.
Perhaps you'd argue less if you realized that these aren't supposed to be absolute, like my other attempt, but simply guidelines for participants in a tournament. I'm not making a core definition anymore, and I hope you can appreciate my efforts. Right now, you're throwing my ideas away, but not suggesting any relief for a confused tournament head who wants a turtle rules. It's a bit cynical, don't you think?

[Mithrandir]

This point is key, so I'd like to bump it up to the front of the thread.

I also have an anti with a stone golem, however, the stone golem is on the third row, with scouts on the second row, DT on the first. It absolutely destroys same side turtles, but that isn't really fair, because it is not a turtle.

A common reaction when people see it is "Wow, turtling in freestyle?... sort of..."

I like that form because it combines attributes of three of the four main styles of play (rush, anti, and turtle). It doesn't have a DSM though. :bigsmile:
Care to give a screeny of this intriguing setup?

[monkus]

Mith, just the man I was looking for. You're a tourney leader, so tell us, considering my main view is helping tourney leaders, do you feel this is a good thing for you?

[Moose]

Ok let me put it simply then, if you change the name of these "rules" to "opinated guidelines" then I wouldn't have a problem.

But they way you stand up for these like there it's a holy script, makes it feel that you want these to be so offical that there can't be any other ways for tournies and games to work without these rules.

Tournies need guidelines, but considering the turtle tournies i've had a chance to see often use there own modified idea's on how the rules are set up, if you try to have one standerd to the turtle forms then you will never have any diversity, these are good options to follow, but they shouldn't be rules to obey no matter what, with the addition of "Oh, but we can make exceptions generally all the time".

It's still contradictive, and until you make a thread that makes these rules turn into opinions, I will never agree to this ever.

[Mithrandir]

Mith, just the man I was looking for. You're a tourney leader, so tell us, considering my main view is helping tourney leaders, do you feel this is a good thing for you?
Well first of all, I've read very little of this thread. Secondly, I'm not a turtler in any sense of the word. When it comes to setting up turtle rules for my tournaments, I've always asked for advice from people I respect because I know I'm not well qualified to just make a call.

I think the concept of having official rules that are easy to explain and that everyone knows what they are is a good one. And it's only fair to have such rules be voted on by everyone. I'm not sure what you're asking me though.

[monkus]

Ok let me put it simply then, if you change the name of these "rules" to "opinated guidelines" then I wouldn't have a problem.

But they way you stand up for these like there it's a holy script, makes it feel that you want these to be so offical that there can't be any other ways for tournies and games to work without these rules.

Tournies need guidelines, but considering the turtle tournies i've had a chance to see often use there own modified idea's on how the rules are set up, if you try to have one standerd to the turtle forms then you will never have any diversity, these are good options to follow, but they shouldn't be rules to obey no matter what, with the addition of "Oh, but we can make exceptions generally all the time".

It's still contradictive, and until you make a thread that makes these rules turn into opinions, I will never agree to this ever.

Rules don't imply always, they imply mostly. It sounds weird, but empirically it's true. "Don't murder", exception self-defense. "Don't steal", exception, Achilles with a flamethrower attacking innocent civilians. Our disagreement now, Moose, is that you feel these rules will need to be violated often. I don't think that's true. I can't think of any instances aside from stony-less forms that'll require violation, and I can't think of any player who actually uses stony-less forms in tournaments.
When a tournament says "Alpha Rules", that means that they're probably going to be upheld 99% of the time. Maybe even 98%. That means out of 50 competitors, potentially one will require an exception. Probably not even.
It's really not contradictive. Most rules do have exception circumstances. Don't hit your wife? What if she's going for an Uzi to gun down the neighbors with. You really gunna call it the "Domestic Abuse Guidelines"?

[Moose]

See now your just taking things to a whole new extreme, defending YOUR idea's/rules is a lot different then starting to bring in uzi driven wife fiends, and ach (who probably would use a flamethrower anyways) examples of violence.

I'm saying that for something as simple for guides, you don't need "exact" rules to play the turtle games, you just need a basis, and you still have yet to show me that your actually taking anything you've said in previous posts to your next arguement. All i'm seeing now is ludachris and proposturus claims of "breaking rules" in order to defend the idea that your rules are rules, and even though you have said you understand the meaning for a guide instead of a set of rules, you must now feel obligated to defend them to the letter.

Again, you change this from a tourny rule based thread to a tourny helpful guide thread, then i'd be fine with it.

Anyways, i've offered to help give some idea's to make things a lil more concrete, but everytime I open up new idea's or suggestions you simply shoot them down with ridicule, and incase your going to say that "Yeah there idea's, but there not that great" then really, your just showing me more of your bias and inability to come up with a more generalized guide.

P.S: I can't wait to see what you type next ;)

[monkus]

Okay. I'm going to make this reeeeeeeeeeaaallyyy simple.

Guidelines don't dictate action, they suggest action.
Rules dictate action.

Rules are not 100%. They are more like 99%. It's okay to have exceptions once in a while.

My rules are really good. 99% of the time they're what needs to be followed. Every once in a while, a dude has a crazy form that's a turtle but not allowed by my rules, so in that case it's okay to ask for an exception.

Anyways, i've offered to help give some idea's to make things a lil more concrete, but everytime I open up new idea's or suggestions you simply shoot them down with ridicule, and incase your going to say that "Yeah there idea's, but there not that great" then really, your just showing me more of your bias and inability to come up with a more generalized guide.
Your idea was "A defensive posture in the back corner". Turtles need not be defensive, they just need to be back. Some people use "power turtles", which are made for aggression. We also don't even know what a "Defensive posture" is. I'd be fine with a good idea you can come up with, but let's hear a firm idea that can withstand scrutiny, shall we?


P.S: I can't wait to see what you type next

Moo.

[Match Strike]

Care to give a screeny of this intriguing setup?
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2016/turtrush1ph.th.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=turtrush1ph.jpg)

Ta-Da!

[.Vash.]

I have used this set before lol, who made this set?

[bludhoundz]

That set OWNS.

[Bottle]

Stick a BW in for a knight. If you get first turn, you win against ANY same-side form, because it takes them 2 turns minimum to break your stone focus.

[monkus]

Stick a BW in for a knight. If you get first turn, you win against ANY same-side form, because it takes them 2 turns minimum to break your stone focus.

That's in a turtle game though. In freestyle, they can break it immediately when you make it.

[Moose]

Okay. I'm going to make this reeeeeeeeeeaaallyyy simple.

Guidelines don't dictate action, they suggest action.
Rules dictate action.

Correct, and you've just done it again, before you have said that these are more around the lines of a guide rather then rules, and now you are stricly suggesting that these are MUST for rules.

Rules are not 100%. They are more like 99%. It's okay to have exceptions once in a while.

The way you've suggested it over and over makes the tourny host have any preference he wants for following "these rules" so again it's his guidelines, not YOUR rules. Exceptions are fine considering a guide is more freely based, instead of following these rules to the letter

My rules are really good. 99% of the time they're what needs to be followed. Every once in a while, a dude has a crazy form that's a turtle but not allowed by my rules, so in that case it's okay to ask for an exception.

Thats right, so "My rules are really good", does that mean that they are your rules now, I thought you said that these were idea's/rules given to you by others and voted on, so again, you've contradicted yourself.


Your idea was "A defensive posture in the back corner". Turtles need not be defensive, they just need to be back. Some people use "power turtles", which are made for aggression. We also don't even know what a "Defensive posture" is. I'd be fine with a good idea you can come up with, but let's hear a firm idea that can withstand scrutiny, shall we?


Turtle forms are defensive in nature, these newer adapted forms of turtles are more along the lines of "rush turtles" which is a completely different matter all together, your rules apply mostly for "rush turtle" restrictions, not "turtle" formations.

As for scrutiny, you just tend to try and point out the flaws instead of actually considering something, so when I have time i'll make a beta thread with your "idea's" and my "idea's" that make things more reasonable.


Moo.

Eat a banana.

[Match Strike]

I have used this set before lol, who made this set?
Me.

[x-useme]

The old post:

Okay, first, let me just say how cool it is to hear people refer to a set of rules as "The monkus rules". Major ego boost. Thanks guys.
However, because I'm annoying like that, I still want some form of standardization that can be applied to tournaments, games, etc.
I'm calling these "The Alpha Turtle Rules", because first, I mean come on, it just sounds amazingly cool. Kind of like "The Super Omega Death Ray", but for turtle rules. Also, Alpha is usually first, so if we want to change them around, we can always make a Beta later on.

Now, onto the concept. This time, we're going to VOTE on what we want. I'm making a multi-option poll for everyone to vote on, so they can pick which aspects of turtle rules they like the best.
Note: THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF WHAT A TURTLE IS. This is simply a set of rules that any tournament can follow (claiming to use the "Alpha Turtle Rules", with a link here), so each tournament coordinator need not concern him or herself with defining turtles. Also, this way players can use one turtle for all their games and tournaments, and don't need to worry about specifying what is and isn't allowed.

Also, most of these differences were taken from tournament threads, my old thread, etc. I'll give the players of TAO the choice of which aspects they like and don't like.

Final note: I'm going to assume that no one wants the golem ambusher in turtle games, and probably for good reason. Most turtle games start with "No GA" or "No bushers", and I haven't seen a set of definitive rules that allow ambushers. Interpretations such as Bottle's "Turtles are forms that prefer opposite sides" are excellent for discourse, but not for defining tournaments, etc. And, as usual, any player can easily ask for exceptions to rules in tournaments, in games, etc., but it's nice to have something to fall back upon.

Now, what you'll be voting for:

First vote: Stone golem anywhere, or stone golem in back row or second row corners.
The latter prevents much more aggressive turtles from taking effect, such as those that have the stonie in front of cleric.

Second vote: Anything in the front row, no mobile ranged units in front row EXCEPT dragon, or no mobile ranged units in front row at all.
One point of controversy, many people like having forms with a DT front row. Others feel that no mobile ranged units should be in the front row. The first clearly allows things like frontrow muddies, which most people find inappropriate. The second and third are truly where the conflict lies, with the question remaining: Is a frontrow DT too aggressive for turtles?

Third vote: No restrictions on mages, mages must be in back three rows, or mages aren't allowed at all.
The term "units with an unblockable attack" was used in the CAU experiment thread, but I do feel this is a tad ambiguous. Mages are: Pyromancer, Dragonspeaker Mage, and Dark Magic Witch. Some people play with the "no dsm" rule, but this is a tad harsh. Others simply put a row restriction, or some just let bombers be bombers, even in turtle games.

Fourth vote: Units allowed in any columns, or units restricted to 6 columns next to one wall.
Is a turtle also defined by its alignment across the span of the board? The Legends vs. Revelations tournament defined it this way, but many others don't. Center turtles aren't unheard of, and sometimes turtles like to spread out a bit. Should this be allowed?


A final word: Vote for any aspects you like and against any you dislike. You need not vote on every decision, you can abstain if you wish. Voting for each and every choice (I.E. checking them all) really has no impact. Post your opinions, and hopefully we'll get something going!

Your favorite playa,
monkus

p.s. Sorry to anyone who saw the whole triple thread thingy, TAO lagged me out and it just posted over and over. Thanks a ton realist.

The poll will close by New Years so we can have a new set of rules for 2006 (hopefully).

lol, it gets annoying when I ask someone for a Monkus turt and some noob says: Monkus isn't on right now x-useme :dry:

[Lord Sesshomaru]

lol, it gets annoying when I ask someone for a Monkus turt and some noob says: Monkus isn't on right now x-useme :dry:

Lol and im not much of a turtler. But at least monkus turts make it interesting. Rock on Monknewb! :cool:

[carlos22]

lol, it gets annoying when I ask someone for a Monkus turt and some noob says: Monkus isn't on right now x-useme :dry:

Are we gonna get Alpha isn't on this time? O_O

[Mithrandir]

Bump for practical purposes.

[Magician]

But... But! Ignorance is a bliss, no? :(

[Sensai]

Bump for practical purposes.

You little post whore :p

[Lord Shinok]

Can't we take 2nd corner sets out of Alpha Rules? I hate 2nd corner sets. It's noobish like Legends Pro Turtle.

[Cliche]

Can't we take 2nd corner sets out of Alpha Rules? I hate 2nd corner sets. It's noobish like Legends Pro Turtle.

Let's see you use one, pal!

[Lord Shinok]

I use them sometimes since everyone seems to be using them all the time. :dry:

[imagination]

i used to use second corner but i find back row has more advantages if you play it corectly.

[Magician]

If you know how to play it, yes. :p

[Cannabis]

Eh. I use second corner. It's not a noobish style, it's actually quite hard... When using second row you have to rely on same side. But when oppo, your cleric is open and vulnerable, so it takes a lot of skill to kick some ass in oppo. =P

[Lord Shinok]

2nd corner is usually good if you get same-side and 1st turn.

Earlier today, I had a turtle game with Flawless. He used 2nd corner set and I had back row set. It was a same-side game and I got 1st turn. Won by 8. :)

[Cliche]

i used to use second corner but i find back row has more advantages if you play it corectly.

No way. It's the complete opposite. The second row has way more advantages if you know how to play it effectively.

[spencer 555]

No way. It's the complete opposite. The second row has way more advantages if you know how to play it effectively.

Ellaborate please, without proof this post means nothing to anyone >.>

[Magician]

Unless you know what Cliche is talking about. :)

Oh, and welcome back.

[2xfire]

I enjoyed turtling much more back in the day without "alpha" rules....

I always used the typical back row turt with the mid mud/wisp, JUST IT WASNT BACK ROW... IT WAS JUST MOVED UP ONE SPACE TO SECOND ROW.

It was funny when I came back and people got so mad when I asked them for a turt game and I had no clue wtf "alpha" was.

But I guess people didn't like the fact that half the time these forms were used the person wouldn't even stone their units haha.

[Cliche]

Ellaborate please, without proof this post means nothing to anyone >.>

Unless you know what Cliche is talking about. :)

Oh, and welcome back.

What Magician said.

[spencer 555]

What Magician said.

Why would magician use back row if it wasnt viable??

[imagination]

cliche ... when i used a second row i won more opp games than same side. opp is all about positioning in the middle of the field. in a same side game the 2nd corner is forced more into the wall while the back row is forced more into the corner turts flank side. any decent player can block off the path to the cleric/stone on the wall side and then semi flank. it spreads the corner out a bit and then you can just isolate the spread pieces.

you think the flank is wide open on opp games but the fact is if you can get out offensive faster and block the center path first (which is more difficult i will grat you) then your flank is just as vulnerable as the flank of the back row turt.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Can't we take 2nd corner sets out of Alpha Rules? I hate 2nd corner sets. It's noobish like Legends Pro Turtle.

Two thumbs down for this one!

But since I don't feel like singling Shinok out for sharing this wholly invalid sentiment with others in the turtling community:

If you can provide a valid reason as to why second corner should be removed that doesn't involve back-row stone users being incompetent boobs, I'll personally change the setup I've been using since the Golem Ambusher/Wisp combination, and then eat both of my silly hats (a beret and a fedora), complete with pictures (or a short video), and YouTube it for everyone to see.

Being advantageous against back-row turtles in same-side doesn't count. It's not a valid point. Sure, it may be advantageous against your (yes, your) back-row turtle, but that's because you (yes, you) absolutely refuse to offer your formation ANY same-side protection that could make the form so very viable even against corner clusters, for which nobody is to blame but you. Cry less.

If you want me to change the turtling style I've used for three years because of your petty disgusts, turtling community, bring me valid opinions, because this disgust towards corner turtlers is not tremendously old and it's nothing prompted by game changes, it's simply the by-product of an opinion shift in the turtling community that was prompted by a change in turtling style among back-row users, which had advantages over the past domineering styles, but crippling faults elsewhere, which people still insist on changing the very rules of turtling for, as opposed to manning up and finding something new (or, say, moving one unit to patch up these faults).

So if you want to tell me whether or not I can use my formation, bring me a damned good reason.

Until then my hats will remain safely atop my head.

I bid you good day.

[2xfire]

Interesting........

[Master TAO]

Two thumbs down for this one!

But since I don't feel like singling Shinok out for sharing this wholly invalid sentiment with others in the turtling community:

If you can provide a valid reason as to why second corner should be removed that doesn't involve back-row stone users being incompetent boobs, I'll personally change the setup I've been using since the Golem Ambusher/Wisp combination, and then eat both of my silly hats (a beret and a fedora), complete with pictures (or a short video), and YouTube it for everyone to see.

Being advantageous against back-row turtles in same-side doesn't count. It's not a valid point. Sure, it may be advantageous against your (yes, your) back-row turtle, but that's because you (yes, you) absolutely refuse to offer your formation ANY same-side protection that could make the form so very viable even against corner clusters, for which nobody is to blame but you. Cry less.

If you want me to change the turtling style I've used for three years because of your petty disgusts, turtling community, bring me valid opinions, because this disgust towards corner turtlers is not tremendously old and it's nothing prompted by game changes, it's simply the by-product of an opinion shift in the turtling community that was prompted by a change in turtling style among back-row users, which had advantages over the past domineering styles, but crippling faults elsewhere, which people still insist on changing the very rules of turtling for, as opposed to manning up and finding something new (or, say, moving one unit to patch up these faults).

So if you want to tell me whether or not I can use my formation, bring me a damned good reason.

Until then my hats will remain safely atop my head.

I bid you good day.

This post was : intelligent, truthful , sarcastic and blunt. He makes good points..

Oh and most of all this post was hilarious ^^

[Lord Shinok]

Yeah, after reading it. I was speechless.

I don't really have valid reason on why 2nd corner should be taken out of alpha rules. I was just being a cunt that day. I don't care about 2nd corner anymore.

Yeap, I got pwned. :dry:

[Lonely Tylenol]

About frickin' TIME I won something with a turtle... :p

[Cliche]

About frickin' TIME I won something with a turtle... :p

'cuz lord knows you can't win a game with one.

[pils]

If you think about it... The stone sucks... It can basically only be used effectively if you have really strict rules about how to play a game while using it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you think about it... The stone sucks... It can basically only be used effectively if you have really strict rules about how to play a game while using it.

Want me to show you how wrong you are? I have time to kill.

[-Dape-]

Stoney back row is the way to go, stoney 2nd row can suck balls.

[Lieutenant]

Stoney back row is the way to go, stoney 2nd row can suck balls.

Indeed, 2nd row does suck badly. But it's always nice to beat a 2nd row, with a 1st row on same sides. Right Mag? ;)

[Magician]

Funny how you're willing to say that when you had first turn and I was playing poorly.

Amusing that you decided you didn't want to play when I got first turn. ;)

[Lieutenant]

Funny how you're willing to say that when you had first turn and I was playing poorly.

Amusing that you decided you didn't want to play when I got first turn. ;)

Hm, what more type of advantages do you want then? Isn't side good enough for you? Or did you need a bit of luck? XD

[Magician]

I'm not complaining about the loss. In fact, it's welcoming as it gives me means to assess where I went wrong and how I can improve. :)

[Lieutenant]

I'm not complaining about the loss. In fact, it's welcoming as it gives me means to assess where I went wrong and how I can improve. :)

Hehe, that's why you, and only you, can rock more than anyone in this game Mag. ;)

[Cliche]

Hehe, that's why you, and only you, can rock more than anyone in this game Mag. ;)

*kiss kiss*

;)

[Lonely Tylenol]

Stoney back row is the way to go, stoney 2nd row can suck balls.

Indeed, 2nd row does suck badly. But it's always nice to beat a 2nd row, with a 1st row on same sides. Right Mag? ;)

More compelling arguments! Hooray!

Dape - Why does 2nd row stone suck balls?

Lieu - Ever consider that beating a 2nd row in a same-side game is an anomaly to you because your set is just THAT MUCH WEAKER as the result of a critical hole you're too stubborn to fix?

[-Dape-]

The stoney placement has advantage same sides and oppo.

I like a fair game not a unfair game.

[Magician]

Then design and use a set that eliminates that advantage. Speaking of which, the advantage you so willingly mention... doesn't it work both ways?

[-Dape-]

There is never gunna be a set that has an advantage over it, just what matchs it, which means making a 2nd row stoney set.

I'm not gunna go make another 2nd row stoney set because i prefer back row, takes more skill to use.

2nd row stoney is all about rushing and not thinking, i like to think when i play.

[Cliche]

There is never gunna be a set that has an advantage over it, just what matchs it, which means making a 2nd row stoney set.

I'm not gunna go make another 2nd row stoney set because i prefer back row, takes more skill to use.

2nd row stoney is all about rushing and not thinking, i like to think when i play.

I'd like to see you beat a back row formation opposite side with a second row stone golem against someone that knows what they're doing. Consistently.

I doubt you could.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The stoney placement has advantage same sides and oppo.

I like a fair game not a unfair game.

Oh really now?

And what advantage is that? That, if you happen to have same-side protection and your opponent has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the wall side of the Cleric, the Cleric is vulnerable to an early Scout shot?

What other advantages are there?

The Scout advantage is a folly. I don't know any second-row turtlers who depend on a free Scout shot to the Cleric reliably occurring, but I guarantee you that if you keep getting shot by a Scout, IT IS YOUR FAULT, and I encourage you to post a screenshot of your TERRIBLE formation so I can flaunt your sheer, unbridled stupidity in front of God and country and show you how you can fix that stupid hole in your formation so the big bad people with corner stones will stop harassing you.

Then, in typical dimwitted fashion, you'll cuss me out for doing it all wrong and state matter-of-factly that my changes weaken your set, since you only play against other back-row stone clusters anyway.

That goes for all of you!

If corner clusters have any pointed advantage against back-row clusters, it is the invention of the back-row users and SOLELY the back-row users! Nothing has changed with the game's mechanics, people have just gotten progressively more STUPID over the last two years! What is wrong with you!?

[-Dape-]

A oppo side 2nd row stoney has advantage, flanking to de-stone very easy.

I can't attack aswell as defend my stoney at the same time, i come out my base to far away...de-armor...my scout which is out and mud will get raped HARD.

My set is very good and can pretty well defend against the stoney 2nd rows, but they just have to much advantage, i'd rather play a unadvantage FAIR game.

[Lonely Tylenol]

A oppo side 2nd row stoney has advantage, flanking to de-stone very easy.

I'm sorry, but how is this? If the units in Cluster A can flank the stone in Cluster B, then the units in Cluster B can flank the stone in Cluster A all the same. I've seen it attempted on me so often in the three years of me using my second-row stone that I never removed my Lightning Ward and Furgon from the primary model.

Everything after this is moot, since the basic premise of your argument is WAY off, but if it's worth anything, the following paragraphs are equally wrong. Next argument please!

[Take a Look]

I have been using this setup

http://clip2net.com/clip/m1088/1203267859-clip-74kb.jpg

Sameside
That setup is very good on same side, it’s easy to kill cleric with and at the same times its very useful to de-stone.
But at the same time, its very east de-stoned, if I move my knight I am open for a Mud Quake.

Oppside
The Cleric is easy flanked
The Stone Golem is hard to flank “my stone”
And since my units are in a more front row position, thanks to second row, it’s a little easier to get to your opponents cleric.


Sorry for my bad English

[-Dape-]

I'm sorry, but how is this? If the units in Cluster A can flank the stone in Cluster B, then the units in Cluster B can flank the stone in Cluster A all the same. I've seen it attempted on me so often in the three years of me using my second-row stone that I never removed my Lightning Ward and Furgon from the primary model.

Everything after this is moot, since the basic premise of your argument is WAY off, but if it's worth anything, the following paragraphs are equally wrong. Next argument please!

But 2nd row stoney has a clear reach advantage over the back row stoney.

How can you defend and attack at the same time without getting owned?

[Cliche]

But 2nd row stoney has a clear reach advantage over the back row stoney.

How can you defend and attack at the same time without getting owned?

You don't have to defend AND attack. That's a common misconception with many turtlers, it seems.

Pick one and stick with it until you begin to develop an advantage.

[-Dape-]

But if hes attacking me he has a set advantage and can get to my stoney quicker, and then i can't get to his because i HAVE to defend, if i choose not to defend while hes attacking i'm just gunna get poo'ed on.

But with back row...both have the same advantage, so it's a more fair game, and better to play.

[bludhoundz]

I used to go with some set swings when The Sniper still played. We would go from back row to 2nd corner and so on. Eventually I chose a back row and stuck with it because it seemed like I couldn't lose to a 2nd corner in an opposite sides game.

In a same sides game, if you have a furgon you can severely cut down their offensive as well. I'd say 2nd corner doesn't really have such a huge advantage as you're making it out to be Dape. If you've been practicing turtle a lot and are in practice (I wish I could say that I am, cause I'd back up what I'm saying) then a 2nd corner really shouldn't be any harder to beat than another back row, especially in opposite sides.

[DarkfirePhoenix]

I do love how Dape's argument is based off of the reasoning that he is simply too lazy or incompetent to design a set that has the ability to compensate for obvious weaknesses.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I do love how Dape's argument is based off of the reasoning that he is simply too lazy or incompetent to design a set that has the ability to compensate for obvious weaknesses.

That would be the most commonly held mindset, aye...

[Madars]

Man i kick anybodys bootay in alpha masn yersh i ja-rule man with you nigeeerrrr yeah man i dont5 iknow what you mean dude you crazzy off the lolcortan man yeah thats a new word for you jigga MAN HOERES

[Lord Shinok]

Okay. I have one question about turtling in general. Is it okay if someone move their units without stoning any of them? I mean isn't stoning your units the main point of turtle games? I thought that was what turtling was all about.

Abhimanu told me it was allowed. I didn't think it was.

I need to know before I start bitching at people out who does the same thing Abhimanu just did to me.

EDIT: I'm starting to feel like turtle is losing its meaning nowadays. I miss turtling back in the day. :(

[Magician]

No, you don't have to stone your units. It's advisable in most cases, but sometimes it's just not worth it...

[Lord Shinok]

Ugh, I'm rather annoyed by "not having to stone your units".

EDIT: If people won't stone their units, then what's the point having a stoney in their sets?

So having a stoney in your set makes it a turtle? It makes no sense.

[Enjoi]

I'd say mandatory turt vs. turt. Other times stoning can just be a waste of a turn

[Lord Shinok]

Alright, if stoning isn't required, then I won't have to use stone? If stone is required in turtle sets, but stoning units is not required. How retarded is that?

[trugreatness20]

Its not retarded its part of a strategy. The person is trying to deal damage fast (or go for the cleric kill), but it is not a problem. If he player doesn't stone, then you should stone and beat the crap out of his units. There is always a counter to everything, playing and watching Pun has showed this to me.

[Lord Shinok]

No. My point is why should we have to have a stoney in our "turtle" set if we don't plan on stoning our units?

[trugreatness20]

Because having units clustered around a stone is what makes a gold turtle. Otherwise it would just be a cluster game and your set would get rocked by dsm.

[Lord Shinok]

I'll reply tomorrow when I have the energy to. :)

This post is reserved!!!! w00tness

[The Hand]

A person turtled me with stone two places in front of cleric with no frost looking for the rush advantage but didn't work. If someone doesn't stone play uber defensive they lose there stone and you gain advantage there. End of story.

[Resolute]

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/spencer5552/alphaturtle.jpg

So basically the other day, I played a person on the fps turtle team named s][n on fire and he was using this set for an alpha turtle game and he told me dark7 and bludhoundz (also on the fps turtle team) were using it as well. So basically what I was wondering is, is this set an alpha turtle?? Kingedward told me it wasnt and he is also on the fps turtle team. He called me an idiot for using it against him and owning him :).

[Ol' Time]

Hm, I just noticed...

Technically, if you wanted to put a stone 1 above back corner you can just put him in 2nd corner and put him there first turn. Loophole.

[Tugnus]

Same sides it will rock you and your not as open opp sides. Yeah i was on while they were arguing. Sir Valan was trying to argue that it wasnt adjacent to a wall or something, idk.

[bludhoundz]

Hm, I just noticed...

Technically, if you wanted to put a stone 1 above back corner you can just put him in 2nd corner and put him there first turn. Loophole.

Hi.

I would like you to meet

http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29202

Also I don't use the form posted above. It is, however, legal.

[Knight~of~Honor]

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/spencer5552/alphaturtle.jpg

So basically the other day, I played a person on the fps turtle team named s][n on fire and he was using this set for an alpha turtle game and he told me dark7 and bludhoundz (also on the fps turtle team) were using it as well. So basically what I was wondering is, is this set an alpha turtle?? Kingedward told me it wasnt and he is also on the fps turtle team. He called me an idiot for using it against him and owning him :).


totally :offtopic::offtopic: but i love how there is some grey in the lobby with the name of I R HORNY

[kingedward]

It basically counters my set. But that's beside the point.

Rule #4 reads "All units must be in 6 adjacent columns, where one of those columns is next to a wall."

None of his columns are against a wall.

[bludhoundz]

His knight's column is against a wall. ;)

[Rogue_Wolf]

Why was the GA banned?

:mad:

-Rogue_Wolf

[bludhoundz]

It wasn't.

[zyz]

It basically counters my set. But that's beside the point.

Rule #4 reads "All units must be in 6 adjacent columns, where one of those columns is next to a wall."

None of his columns are against a wall.
they are all against the back wall..
and the units are in adjacent columns
http://i39.tinypic.com/2cekfeq.jpg

[NejixKun]

they are all against the back wall..

Lol. Fail.

[Silver Coast]

Same sides it will rock you and your not as open opp sides. Yeah i was on while they were arguing. Sir Valan was trying to argue that it wasnt adjacent to a wall or something, idk.

Not really. It would be good against a same side 2nd row since it could reach the cleric in move with its scouts, but otherwise, it's not really a big advantage against back rows. Trust me, I have first hand experience playing this turtle form.

[spencer 555]

It isnt an advantage to backrows at all, however it is more balanced then the 2 generic stone positions and has more possibilities. Sets like this are the future of turtling :)

[Silver Coast]

It isnt an advantage to backrows at all, however it is more balanced then the 2 generic stone positions and has more possibilities. Sets like this are the future of turtling :)

Maybe. There will definitely be a fight between the old forms and this new form. A clash of old vs new.

I personally find the normal back row turtle the best turtle type out there.

[Rogue_Wolf]

Why was the GA banned?

:mad:

-Rogue_Wolf

It wasn't.

But...

The Alpha Turtle Rules:

1. Stone golem in the back row or second to back row corner, with 4 units next to it ready to be stoned.
2. No mobile ranged units in the front row.
3. All mages (Pyro, DSM, DMW) must be in the back 3 rows
4. All units must be in 6 adjacent columns, where one of those columns is next to a wall.
5. No golem ambusher.

:huh:

-Rogue_Wolf

[Silver Coast]

Lies!

[Rogue_Wolf]

What if you know what a Turtle is because you were there when it was first invented and don't give a **** what some stinkin' rules say?

-Rogue_Wolf

[NejixKun]

Rogue was too pro with it, so they banned it :P

I think it was because golem ambusher 4th row in sameside games would be cheap.

EDIT: Rogue, we should make the Gamma turt rules.
AU already made beta turt rules

[Ol' Time]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6239/picture6s.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture6s.png)

Heres a new thing that I mentioned a page back. I doubt Im the first one to think of this but this is a fine way to get around the 1 up from back corner being an illegal stone position.

EDIT: Dont worry about the whole set I just care about the stone

[Silver Coast]

What if you know what a Turtle is because you were there when it was first invented and don't give a **** what some stinkin' rules say?

-Rogue_Wolf

Then ignore it. It doesn't really matter anyways, I'd actually be kinda happy if someone used a GA against me. If it was same side, he would have to put it at the top of his stone cluster for it to be of any threat, making his mud much less of a threat since it will most likely be in the middle because of the GA. So, overall it would decrease the rushing power of the turtle and add a no blocking or armor unit to the turtle. And don't even make me start on an opposite side game against a GA.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6239/picture6s.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture6s.png)

Heres a new thing that I mentioned a page back. I doubt Im the first one to think of this but this is a fine way to get around the 1 up from back corner being an illegal stone position.

EDIT: Dont worry about the whole set I just care about the stone

That stone placement is just a douche move..

[NejixKun]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6239/picture6s.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture6s.png)

Heres a new thing that I mentioned a page back. I doubt Im the first one to think of this but this is a fine way to get around the 1 up from back corner being an illegal stone position.

EDIT: Dont worry about the whole set I just care about the stone

Read the first rule.

1. Stone golem in the back row or second to back row corner, with 4 units next to it ready to be stoned.

You have to worry about the whole set, because its still breaking alpha rules if you do that.

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

That stone placement is just a douche move..

*illegal.

Puni's and other loophole sets have a 4 stone cluster in POSITION to stone, however it is never intented to actually be stoned. Nonetheless, it complies with all alpha turtle rules.

This is why the rules are stupid: sure they're the best we got, but I'd rather just play someone who knew what a turtle was. I don't give a rats ass if they have a DT in the front row, or use a center turtle. If you know what a turtle is, you know what a turtle is.

[Silver Coast]

Read the first rule.

1. Stone golem in the back row or second to back row corner, with 4 units next to it ready to be stoned.

You have to worry about the whole set, because its still breaking alpha rules if you do that.

Good catch. Completely forgot about that one.

[Ol' Time]

Thats ghe.

[Nightmarez]

GA is easily banned... if you don't have knights surrounding in front of it you have: A: a quick shot to cleric or stone B: an unstone. C: it's also hard to keep your turtle intact while being forced to NOT let a GA hit twice, and with 2 scouts freezing it would be absurd.

[NejixKun]

http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o462/ArcticxWolf/turtloophole2.jpg
Turtle Loophole set.

[Rogue_Wolf]

GA is easily banned... if you don't have knights surrounding in front of it you have: A: a quick shot to cleric or stone B: an unstone. C: it's also hard to keep your turtle intact while being forced to NOT let a GA hit twice, and with 2 scouts freezing it would be absurd.

The GA was created to help fight the Furgon. Just because some douche got creative and stuck it on the front row doesn't mean anyone has the right to ban a unit outright.

When the DSM was made, ya know what Turtlers did? We adapted our sets to combat cleric killer formations, and we succeeded.

It's sad the next generation couldn't adapt and had to make rules because they couldn't handle a new unit.

/rant

-Rogue_Wolf

[bludhoundz]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6239/picture6s.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture6s.png)

Heres a new thing that I mentioned a page back. I doubt Im the first one to think of this but this is a fine way to get around the 1 up from back corner being an illegal stone position.

EDIT: Dont worry about the whole set I just care about the stone

Hi. It appears you completely ignored my earlier post.

I created an amendment to the Alpha Turtle rules.

The amendment stats that you MAY NOT move your stone golem upon first usage. It must stone units already adjacent.

Also Nejix - I don't see how that is a loophole set? It fits the rules, and it isn't particularly unfair. And like I said above, you can't move the stone upon its first usage.

[Ol' Time]

Hi. It appears you completely ignored my earlier post.

I created an amendment to the Alpha Turtle rules.

The amendment stats that you MAY NOT move your stone golem upon first usage. It must stone units already adjacent.

Also Nejix - I don't see how that is a loophole set? It fits the rules, and it isn't particularly unfair. And like I said above, you can't move the stone upon its first usage.

I told you in the lobby I saw it.

And the neji...yes that set can not work well.

[bludhoundz]

So why did you post that form AFTER you read my post? :confused:

[Ol' Time]

So why did you post that form AFTER you read my post? :confused:

I didnt, you mentioned it in the lobby and i saw it. It answered my question.

[bludhoundz]

/facepalm

[Resolute]

Hi.

I would like you to meet

http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29202

Also I don't use the form posted above. It is, however, legal.

Ol'time, I think bludhoundz is refering to this. Read the link, he posted this about a page before u posted ur "loophole set" and this should have negated about 2 pages of useless questions, but people failed to grasp what he was trying to say.

I feel your pain blud :P

[NejixKun]

It was designed for opp sides.

Anyway, oopsies, I didn't realize that. But, couldn't i technically move my knight up first turn, then stone my cluster the 2nd turn? That wouldn't be breaking any rules, considering you said:

You can stone in a different position later in the game, just not the opening move.

[zyz]

Humm.
ive been reading the alpha rules.
and from what ive seen
there is a set that sems to have many variations.
http://i42.tinypic.com/wwhlxs.jpg
^does not meet alpha rules.^
because dragon is on the front row.


http://i44.tinypic.com/bdoep5.jpg
meets rules.

rules:
http://tacticsarenaonline.com/forum/showpost.php?p=635960&postcount=1
some one correct me please

[The Butcher]

You are correct.

[Cross-Fire]

Both of those sets are week, your scouts dont have enough reach for opp side

[The Butcher]

Both of those sets are week, your scouts dont have enough reach for opp side

All he wanted to know was if they met alpha standards or not. The first one does not and the second one does. Technically.

[knix]

Turtle is good for all game types....{sometimes rush destroys it}

[Purity]

Humm.
ive been reading the alpha rules.
and from what ive seen
there is a set that sems to have many variations.
http://i42.tinypic.com/wwhlxs.jpg
^does not meet alpha rules.^
because dragon is on the front row.


http://i44.tinypic.com/bdoep5.jpg
meets rules.

rules:
http://tacticsarenaonline.com/forum/showpost.php?p=635960&postcount=1
some one correct me please

lol i read the clan chat, looks like whoever ur talking about lost to an anthrax member, even though you said we suck, go us

[I Just Ownd You]

Lol, the scouts are necessarily weak for oppo, that could force the scouts to have to regroup and move elsewhere, just depends on how well they play the game.

[zyz]

lol i read the clan chat, looks like whoever ur talking about lost to an anthrax member, even though you said we suck, go us

leave the chat alone.. >XD

[xEaglex]

Can someone please sticky this? It's an integral part to our tournament community.

[Magician]

Both of those sets are week, your scouts dont have enough reach for opp side

You're weak. ;)

2nd corner turtles are over-rated.

[knix]

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4655/knixset.jpg

Hows this one?:)

[Baseballboy]

It's ok. Did you really have to stat yourself, Knix? I have the feeling you did to brag about them, right?

[knix]

nah......u mean i would brag for 1200+ stat lol.........

anyways i m just trying to create a good alpha turt setup

[The Butcher]

It's ok.

It's not ok, it's a garbage set.

[knix]

It's not ok, it's a garbage set.

if you got any better alpha turt set then post it here....:dry:

[Baseballboy]

It's not ok, it's a garbage set.
It's ok = It is an alpha turtle.