I'm fortunate to play in a region where the vast majority of players aim to have fun and fly casual, even in tournament settings. I seldom even see dual-Falcon builds.
However, if the opponent tried this strategy it would ruin the fun for everyone. I would seriously consider forfeiting or forcing a draw. Thanks for the heads up on this build and for giving us a strategy to defeat it so we don't have to forfeit in frustration.
There should be a rule that if you run into your own ship twice in a row, you take a damage. It makes sense and will stop any kind of nonsense like this.
Edited by Jo JoThere should be a rule that if you run into your own ship twice in a row, you take a damage. It makes sense and will stop any kind of nonsense like this.
Keeping track of that could be a pain and would that be "colliding with your ship twice" or " colliding with the same ship twice?" The reason I ask it you may want that "rule" to hinder this "fortress" build but it should be equally destructive against a TIE Swarm build if there is some kind of pileup caused for whatever reason. I also see no reason this would be limited to "your" ship. If you want to penalize repeatedly running into things then it should apply EVERYWHERE which means if you block with a ship then IT should be subject to the same damage.
I really don't see why everyone is so upset by this strategy. If I faced it I'd be looking at that dual YT block as me trying to attack some kind of "space station" which essentially is what it is. Yes, the YTs have that "split" option but if they use that then they are back to the "normal" game so many seem to be wanting.
If you don't want to fight because you don't think you can defeat it then take a draw when the situation comes up. In a casual setting I REALLY fail to see the problem with a "fortress" build because you both have the option to just walk away.
There should be a rule that if you run into your own ship twice in a row, you take a damage. It makes sense and will stop any kind of nonsense like this.
Many builds can easily beat a two falcon build when they don't know where it will be going and it's getting its actions, I really don't get why this would be so difficult? Anyone worth a **** flying should be able to figure it out by the time they get through the asteroids and in range I would think.
Yeah in Starcraft 2, this is what they call a cheese build, easy to implement. Hard to counter if you don't know about it. Easy to counter if you do know what to do.
The best thing to do with those is as was said above explain the tactic, and how to counter it.
I don't know. I think cheese builds are much easier to deal with in Starcraft 2 than the Fortress build here. You don't see cheese past gold league generally. Occasionally you see it at the Pro level, but not as an all-in.
Many builds can easily beat a two falcon build when they don't know where it will be going and it's getting its actions, I really don't get why this would be so difficult? Anyone worth a **** flying should be able to figure it out by the time they get through the asteroids and in range I would think.
The problem is not that it would be difficult to beat. It's that it takes away from the spirit of the game and would not be very fun to fly against. It would be like going to a tennis tournament only to find out you've been paired against the wall.
if someone tried to pull that lame crap on me id kick the table over... once I removed my miniatures of course
If i saw this i would concede- well done them they won anothr game. I hate when people take advantage of rules loopholes just to win. A game is meant to be fun for both players.
Once wave 4 hits:
Shuttle BSP/Wingman blockade vs. YT Fortress Go!
And yes, SC2 cheese builds disappear very quick as you progress up the ladder, whereas this could show up in a tourney as a "viable", if completely unenjoyable build. I find it rather sad that people will do this and thus suck the joy out of the game.
The more I read this thread the more I think this is a style of build I want to try using. People are getting so upset because a build doesn't "play" like they want it to that I think it could be fun to play just to watch people's reaction to using it. Running into the player who knows how to deal with it would be a sigh of relief and actually lead to that "breakout" move which can help keep things honest.
Anyone try 4 Advanced Sensors B-wings against this? Crash as many B-wings as possible into Lando. If you can crash all your ships into Lando, then Lando has nothing to shoot at. It might not be possible to get 4 B-wings all piled onto Lando at the start, but 3 should certainly be possible.
The B-wings get all 4 of their actions. The YT-1300's only get one free action from Lando. Chewie should die in the 2nd or at the latest 3rd round of focus fire from the B-wings.
Edited by MajorJugglerif someone tried to pull that lame crap on me id kick the table over... once I removed my miniatures of course
I don't see the problem with a build like this, wouldn't be all that hard to beat. Just learn how to fly REALLY.
And here is nothing 'gamey' about this at all. This is combat in space not in an atmosphere.....
This why i dislike gaming with kids
This why i dislike gaming with kids
Oh? And who are the kids? The one's playing the Falcon Fortress or the ones throwing a tantrum because their opponent is?
Honestly, I've known some teenagers who are FAR more rational and reasonable than some adults.
I'd say that this is a superb TACTIC, but it oughtn't be a long term strategy.
After all, the quickest way to beat an enemy in an impenetrable fortress is to make sure they STAY there.
Oh? And who are the kids? The one's playing the Falcon Fortress or the ones throwing a tantrum because their opponent is? Honestly, I've known some teenagers who are FAR more rational and reasonable than some adults.This why i dislike gaming with kids
I don't see how running a build like this could be considered childish
So the answer should be fairly obvious.......
The game IS about maneuvering and out-maneuvering. Thats the point of x-wing. Your ships have to move every turn. Thats what I love about this game.
Just sitting there with two ships doing basically nothing and hoping for the enemy to make a mistake is... unsportsmanlike and I don't know... lame?
And I simply don't care if its "legal" or a "valid" tactic.
Sadly the turrets already take away a lot of the so-called advantages the Empire should have (maneuverability), and a build like this is just... meh.
Seriously meeting a guy like that in a championship, i'd fly in circles for the full time on my side of the board.
And you'd consider giving up to be "a good sport"
Not seeing peoples logic here
The problem with flying up and down your end (which I think is a completely reasonable response, if they won't come to you why should you go to them?) is that they can wait until nearly the end of the time limit then fly up and swat one of your fighters. You don't have time to kill a Falcon and they win. Likewise, sticking yourself to the fortress doesn't work if they have Anti-Pursuit Lasers.
Anyone got any counters to that? The best way to kill this build is for everyone to know how to slaughter it to the point where it is no longer viable.
Another way to combat this is to bump either Han or Chewie so you are effectively just facing one Falcon as the other can't fire due to base to base. Ok you lose all your actions but you are only taking fire from one falcon instead of two. If he wants to bump ships all day, I can too 
Again this would only work if they don't have Anti pursuits.
I sent in a request to FFG support to have their tournament rules updated regarding the fortressing strategy. I asked them to make the strategy of fortressing an unsportsmanlike condition for tournament play and have it disallowed.
I then explained fortressing as best I could and hoped that they would respond to me.
They responded to my request today.
Is this still going??? I was sure it was an april fool...
I sent in a request to FFG support to have their tournament rules updated regarding the fortressing strategy. I asked them to make the strategy of fortressing an unsportsmanlike condition for tournament play and have it disallowed.
I then explained fortressing as best I could and hoped that they would respond to me.
They responded to my request today.
Hi [sergovan],Thanks for sending along your concern.We are aware of this strategy and are monitoring its performance. We will continue to do so, and we will introduce rules preventing such strategies if we believe it becomes a problem.Thanks again!
I hope you've also complained about "swarms" as well. It is a strategy that is COMPLETELY within the rules. Most of the "unsportsmanlike" comments I've seen are regarding people who refuse to acknowledge that it is a usable, but ultimately beatable, strategy. I'd also say the reply is the polite way of saying "We heard. We'll see. Don't expect too much."
I don't think anyone ever claimed the tactic and build was breaking the rules. The question was: should it be allowed? Games can easily develop situations that break the game or create unintentional negative play experiences. FFG's response sounded like they are going to allow the meta to weed it out unless someone finds a combination that is broken. That sounds fine since this situation has been available for awhile and no one has executed it successfully.
Comparing this tactic to Swarms is pretty ridiculous, though. The fortress tactic calls into question what is in the spirit of the game. People may differ on what that is exactly but if the tactic yields a truly broken situation, it's good to know that FFG is watching out for it and is ready to step in and deal with it.