I do believe, by the way, that the original poster is slowly coming around and seeing the value. Still not liking it, but coming to accept it as an integral part of the game and something to be taken into account when planning moves.

Blocking is like chess play, it's often about planning ahead so that you give your opponent less options each turn, so you can predict where they will go. It is one fo the biggest strengths of low PS builds, and certainly a benefit of big ships who are harder to get past. It was in integral part of my strategy at Regionals, and I won our championship with it. Often, by the time you realise you've got a risk of being blocked, you're a turn ahead of where you needed to be planning for it.

FFG's cool with it. "Blocking" kind of makes it sound like a cheap tactic, I know, but in actuality having to spend your action to dodge the horde of TIE fighters flying at you with little to no concern for their own lives. Like the TIE swarm at the start of the Battle of Endor. (Just after "IT'S A TRAP!")

That being said, I'd love to be able to refuse to dodge, take the three direct hull crits to the Falcon* and swat that hexwinged son of a B-wing off the board. Just once.

Falcon Fortress is a cheap mechanics abuse though, which FFG's stated they're "keeping an eye on." To me, that means they'd do something about it if it wasn't less useful than the normal "fly around the border" dual Falcon strategy.

* Even better if it's Chewbacca. Also note the definite article. The Falcon. Singular. One guess as to which person doesn't like Multifalk much.

Stolen from Theorist:

"As an aside, here’s why “blocks were not intended as a tactic” is complete BS:

– The rule that says you skip your action step when blocked exists.

– No rule saying the impeding ship takes 1 damage exists. (to punish blocking)

– Anti Pursuit Lasers exists, a card that begs you to intentionally block.

– The only decent use of PS 1 ships like AP or Prototype is as a blocker.

– There’s a crit, Stunned Pilot, that rewards the opponent for blocking you."

Whelp then I'm a cheap player, because blocking is the best thing ever. Board control is an amazing tool, and locking someone in place for several turns can win you the game. Especially locking Firesprays onto Asteroids.

In all reality, it isn't cheap. It's difficult to do, and can put you at a disadvantage later.

I love facing blocker lists, especially from people at my FLGS who don't know how I fly. Apparently I don't plan my maneuvers like a normal person, so they go one place expecting me to Kiogran, and instead I've turned completely away from one battle area to join another and attack some poor sod from the side. I absolutely destroy low PS builds.

I must qualify this statement however, in an attempt to not sound so "look at how much more awesomer than everything i am" by saying our local X-Wing community is not very large, and not everyone in it is all that good in general. And the one person I know of who always goes 50/50 with me in W/L ratio tends to fly middle to high PS squads, and doesn't really like blocking as a tactic.

Stolen from Theorist:

"As an aside, here’s why “blocks were not intended as a tactic” is complete BS:

– The rule that says you skip your action step when blocked exists.

– No rule saying the impeding ship takes 1 damage exists. (to punish blocking)

– Anti Pursuit Lasers exists, a card that begs you to intentionally block.

– The only decent use of PS 1 ships like AP or Prototype is as a blocker.

– There’s a crit, Stunned Pilot, that rewards the opponent for blocking you."

A: Or it could mean, as most people interpret it, try to avoid hitting the opponent's ships.

B: Evidence this Theorist guy hasn't thought this through. This rule exists for asteroids because asteroids don't move. That wouldn't punish blocking, that would encourage ramming. It not existing suggests FFG didn't want people to fly ships into each other. Their logic applies in the opposite direction too. The colliding ship doesn't take damage. If it did, FFG would be encouraging you to block.

C: In Wave 3. The rules were written in Wave 1. Later waves have adapted to player feedback.

D: Really now? Academy Pilot isn't a "cheap blocker", its the backbone of one of X-wing's most successful squads. Blue Squadron Pilot and Rookie Pilot too. FFG prints base pilots for everything, they don't follow the line of thought "it won't appear as often in tournaments so we won't print it at all". FFG can't predict with 100% certainty how tournament meta will turn out and the majority of X-wing play isn't tournament anyway. How that Theorist guy uses ships does not determine how they were designed or what FFG were thinking when they designed them.

E: Or super-encourages you not to hit things.

I think blocking wasn't originally intended, but FFG's taken it in their stride and adopted it. Initiative they thought was good thing initially, they've later backtracked on that and made the winner of initiative rolls choose if they have it.

I understand the frustration but agree with other comments that it is a part of the strategy of flying in the game.

I believe if you play attack wing you can still attack another ship even if touching. But on larger ships you can put anti-pursuit lasers on it to possibly give them damage when they do collide.

Evidence this Theorist guy hasn't thought this through

I don't think there's evidence in xwing theorist hasn't thought through...

http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/

What were Wedge and Biggs doing behind Luke in the trench if not blocking the TIEs chasing him?

Anyways, as for the actual games intent. Only thing I could add, is that if you have 2 overlapping / non parallel ship that are "blocking", attempting to shoot into the "bumping" scenario, it would pose a situation that 3rd unit would have difficulty hitting his intended target but potentially hit his ally.

*edit*

This would add a modifier (die) for the units in "overlap". If I recall, this happens in SNH, when TIEs come out Biggs gets one on his tail, Luke comes in behind waiting for target lock etc, so he doesn't hit his ally Biggs. He could have just fired from the hip, much earlier, but would jeopardize Biggs.

*edit*

Fall for it once, shamE on them, fall for it twice shame on yourself. Atleast they are engaging your ships and not doing the "INDY 12 POINTS" another left turn ...

Evidence this Theorist guy hasn't thought this through

I don't think there's evidence in xwing theorist hasn't thought through...

http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/

Then explain the grate-worth of holes in his reasoning.

Evidence this Theorist guy hasn't thought this through

I don't think there's evidence in xwing theorist hasn't thought through...

http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/

Then explain the grate-worth of holes in his reasoning.

You disagree with his logic. Doesn' mean it isn't valid. FFG has recognized bumping as a strategy and worked to make it a balanced tactic. But I scarcely believe they weren't awar of its uses.(Although I think they overvalued Pilot Skill by undervaluing Bumping. Hence the move to provide more uses for High PS.) You can see in the way they have continued to design things that they are working to make the tactic fit well in the game if you take the time to look. Advanced Sensors. Whatever the move at PS0 card is. Phantoms, etc.

This Theorist guy decries the idea that FFG didn't anticipated the intentional "blocking" tactic in the game's initial development (Wave 1 and core) as "complete BS". I don't think I need to state what that stands for.

He then gives five bits of supposed evidence to back this up.

First he cites the action loss rule when you hit another ship, completely ignoring the possibility that FFG simply wanted to discourage players from hitting each other.

Then he claims that if FFG wanted to discourage blocking, they'd have made it a rule that a ship that gets hit during another's maneuver takes one damage. Allow me to rephrase that. If you overlap another ship it takes one damage. That doesn't discourage blocking, that encourages ships to ram each other. I can't even begin to describe how close to broken that would get. A TIE swarm could use that to deal 7 guaranteed damage a turn.

Then he brings up Anti-Pursuit Lasers. APL comes with the Lambda Shuttle, which is Wave 3. By then FFG's seen the blocking strategy in action and chosen to embrace it. It has nothing to do with their initial expectations.

He then claims that the only use for a low PS pilot is to block. He uses Academy Pilot, one of the most popular ships in the game, as one of his examples. He could mean one of two things here. The first is that low PS pilots are otherwise useless, which I think almost every user of this forum can disagree with. The second is that the only use of low PS itself is to block. He seems to have missed the whole point-based squad building tactic. While low PS is better for blocking, its main use is costing less.

Finally he cites Stunned Pilot as somehow evidence for FFG predicting intentional blocking as a tactic. A single crit that in the grand scheme of things comes up pretty **** rarely? Yes, when Stunned comes up you want to hit their ship. But how often does Stunned come up? This doesn't really relate to a tactic deployed at any time. You don't build a list around countering Damaged Engine's effects. That, and FFG could have simply meant it as don't hit other ships when maneuvering.

Do you still think that's all valid logic?

What were Wedge and Biggs doing behind Luke in the trench if not blocking the TIEs chasing him?

That's literal blocking, blocking line of sight. If you fly behind a ship in X-wing you don't stop it shooting the ship in front. Plus, all ships, including the Y-wings that didn't know about the TIEs, flew down the trench like that.

They all had torps.

Whether the current state of blocking was intentional or not, the game would be much poorer if blocking did not exist.

I for one welcome our blocking overlords.

Glad to see that we don't feed on negativity and we support our community here by accepting his frustration and give him some pointers on what to look for / counter this tactic.

Oh wait, nevermind, we need to keep that super secret so we can get uber cool plastic stuff at tourneys, just to turn around and sell them

The OP's post and subsequent responses were either composed by

a) A forum troll - Correct Response: Contempt and Ridicule. For no reason either than catharsis.

b) An exceptionally lazy new player with no spatial skills and a chronic phobia of search engines - Correct Response: Contempt and Ridicule. In the hopes that it will accelerate his quitting the game due to how 'broken' it is. His local metagame will thank us.

c) An exceptionally lazy new player with no spatial skills and a chronic phobia of search engines however with enough testicular fortitude to endure criticism and develop basic skills - Correct Response: Contempt and Ridicule. In the hopes that with enough tough love he/she will get over their crippling fear of Google. Who knows, he/she might be the next world champion in the making.

Therefore all responses have been perfectly reasonable.

The above post was either composed by

a) A forum troll - Correct Response: Contempt and Ridicule. For no reason either than catharsis.

b) An exceptionally lazy forumer with no social skills and a chronic phobia of helping his fellow player - Correct Response: Contempt and Ridicule. In the hopes that it will accelerate his quitting the forum due to how polite he isn't. The rest of the forum will thank us.

c) An exceptionally lazy forumer with no social skills and a chronic phobia of helping his fellow player who thinks that putting up with his abuse is equivalent to "testicular fortitude" - Correct Response: Contempt and Ridicule. In the hopes that with enough tough love he/she will get over their crippling fear of acting like a decent human being. Who knows, he/she might stop trying to be a tough guy on the internet and go outside.

Therefore all responses have been perfectly reasonable.

*reads last few posts*

Really, fellas? You've seriously got nothing better to do?

Giving him advice about blocking wouldn't address his moral issues with blocking. Discussing its place in the game might.

What were Wedge and Biggs doing behind Luke in the trench if not blocking the TIEs chasing him?

EDIT: This is a Quote from Lagomorphia. I apologize for messing up the quote thing.

"That's literal blocking, blocking line of sight. If you fly behind a ship in X-wing you don't stop it shooting the ship in front. Plus, all ships, including the Y-wings that didn't know about the TIEs, flew down the trench like that. They all had torps."

ME--->Not to sound all Star Wars purist, but the Y-wings in the trench did know about the TIEs coming in behind them. Dutch Vander even exclaims over the comms, "three marks at two-ten!", while Pops Krail tells him to stay on target.

Also, not all of the fighters attacking the Death Star had proton torpedoes because the Rebellion just didn't have enough to go around at the time. The flight leads, Dutch, Dreis, that kid who "bulls-eyes womp-rats back home", and a few others I don't know the names to, were the only ones to have ordnance aboard. Everyone else who flew behind them in the trench were blocking shots and preventing forward movement of the TIEs behind them.

Again, just casually letting you know.

To contribute to the OP thread; I tend to believe blocking is a very viable tactic and is best utilized by Academy Pilots and Gold Squadron Pilots with Ion Cannon Turrets ( I don't run Prototypes very often and find that playing with them as a blocker is not cheap). I find nothing cheap about blocking at all. In fact, in the Army we are taught what are known as blocking positions. You basically place units outside of the main effort to isolate an objective and prevent reinforcements from arriving and/or prevent escape, denying the enemy the ability to take actions on the objective themselves. Kinda like putting an AP in the path of another ship, that ship moves and bumps, then Turr Phennir moves in as the main effort can take his action where the gap is, and shoots n'scoots safely to one side or the other.

I can see where someone would claim that denying actions on purpose to gain an advantage might sound cheap, but in warfare, real or gaming, gaining the advantage while denying the enemy access to whatever advantages they have available is ultimately what ensures victory. Whether or not the developers did plan action denial as a tactic, it is a sound tactic and as such, squads that are successful will utilize blocking to their advantage.

Nothing is unsportsmanlike about playing the game by its established rules...rules which both players can leverage equally. Moreover, there's no requirement to play by preconceived notions of how a game ought to play out thematically or otherwise. Great tactics are devised precisely by breaking conventions and shaking up the expectations of your opponent. If a tactic bothers you then it should be encouraged and explored in order to see how it impacts the game. Blocking doesn't inhibit the contest at all and, in fact, makes it more nuanced and competitive.

So, blocking is not unsportsmanlike at all. It is really quite sporting.

Then you share with most others here in having no idea what sportsmanship means.

Then you share with most others here in having no idea what sportsmanship means to me.

FTFY.

And that is the real problem: the definition changes from person to person. I believe that sportsmanship is about how you act, not how you play. Play by the rules, treat your opponent with respect, and be gracious about the result, whichever side of it you're on. You extend it into the tactics one employs in game, which honestly confuses me.

Sportsmanship is not just playing by the rules. Sportsmanship is slowing down or stopping for a bit in the Tour de France when there's been a massive pile-up behind you. It's kicking or throwing the ball out of bounds to enable an injured opponent to get medical treatment and then, when the opponents start play again, they pass the ball directly to you.

It's passing up on playing strictly by the rules and taking a mild disadvantage to level the playing field and ensure the best experience for everyone involved.

Which is not to say you should forego blocking entirely, just that you should ease new players into it. Some will take to it more easily than others.

@sonova: Uh, what? Can't say I follow your post. Was calling you out on trolling the OP for no good reason. How does that relate to abstract logical whatitsname?

ME--->Not to sound all Star Wars purist, but the Y-wings in the trench did know about the TIEs coming in behind them. Dutch Vander even exclaims over the comms, "three marks at two-ten!", while Pops Krail tells him to stay on target.

Not when they went in, which is when they take up that formation.

As for only the leaders having ordnance, was that in the novelisation or something (imo badly) patched in by EU later on to make it sound more impressive? It seems very odd that Luke and Dreis arbitrarily have torps in lieu of Y-wings. Wedge, Luke and Biggs make a run not because those three were planned to but because they were the only ones left.