My understanding is that this was a specific tactic against a Phantom build. Using traditional tactics probably limits his chances greatly, so he adapted. It's not great-looking, aesthetically, but the outrage is misplaced. He is in a win or go home scenario; is he supposed to line up like the Red Coats under some misguided ethos of "fair play" or is he allowed to use legal moves to try to win? The outrage is way worse than the "crime" IMO.

While I agree that the fortress move is complete bollocks and CERTAINLY not "fly casual", I think there is also some merit to this argument; FFG need to ask themselves, not just how they want to penalize this strategy, but maybe also what sort of meta they have created with the Phantom. Let's see them sort THAT one out.

After reading through this, all I can do is shake my head at the extreme nacho cheese that gameplay was....

I do have one thought, if they implement a penalty for this, it could backfire. Just today in our local store tourney both my opponent and I on the same exact turn didnt move our ships cause we both forgot how bad our maneuver dials were and the asteroid hindered us so that we literally wasted a turn unable to move. It was an honest mistake and this talk of penalties would be an unintended consequence to both our detriment

I also rarely use pegs for my A Wings...they are lowriders and love to hug the ground lol

My understanding is that this was a specific tactic against a Phantom build. Using traditional tactics probably limits his chances greatly, so he adapted. It's not great-looking, aesthetically, but the outrage is misplaced. He is in a win or go home scenario; is he supposed to line up like the Red Coats under some misguided ethos of "fair play" or is he allowed to use legal moves to try to win? The outrage is way worse than the "crime" IMO.

While I agree that the fortress move is complete bollocks and CERTAINLY not "fly casual", I think there is also some merit to this argument; FFG need to ask themselves, not just how they want to penalize this strategy, but maybe also what sort of meta they have created with the Phantom. Let's see them sort THAT one out.

After reading through this, all I can do is shake my head at the extreme nacho cheese that gameplay was....

I do have one thought, if they implement a penalty for this, it could backfire. Just today in our local store tourney both my opponent and I on the same exact turn didnt move our ships cause we both forgot how bad our maneuver dials were and the asteroid hindered us so that we literally wasted a turn unable to move. It was an honest mistake and this talk of penalties would be an unintended consequence to both our detriment

I also rarely use pegs for my A Wings...they are lowriders and love to hug the ground lol

Exactly, every action has a reaction. Now while there are quite a few vocal individuals shouting "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" I don't think penalizing the fortress play is the answer as much as maybe a small amendment to movement rules would suffice instead of a penalty to not being able to move. Furballs are still a big part of this game and it often results into which ship you want to bump (to avoid getting fired) and bumping into your own low PS ship with a high PS ship so you get a range one shot as well as blocking other moves from your opponent to keep them in multiple firing arcs of your ships. Simply saying all ships that don't move take damage would be the worst way to errata this.

Hey guys. The Imperial Player here. Just a few things to clear things up.

I didn't force the issue or call a judge, I simply flew around for 70 minutes waiting for him to come out because I had initiative.

Yes it was annoying.

Yes it was a decent strategy.

Yes it was bad sportsmanship.

Yes I was extremely upset afterwards. In the Final Round I rolled 7 blanks and my single TiE was destroyed. He jumped and cheered like it was a big achievement and then wanted to shake my hand.

Yes i'm rooming with him, which makes things even more awkward.

Yes i've heard talk that FFG is going to sit down and decide whether or not this should be errata-ed

It was definitely uncool to make me fly around by myself for 70 min while he sat back and relaxed.

Ask me whatever

I think there can be an endless discussion here about sportsmanship, as mentioned earlier it is not an objective term.

However I am curious what can be done against tacktics such as these. As he is the latest victim of it I do have some questions for Jimbo, not as criticism, but out of genuine interest:

- Did the tactic of your opponent cause you to lose, or did the horrible streak of 7 blank green dice? It is mentioned several times it was more to the dice than the fortress. What is your view on this?

- Did your roommate explain why he choose this particular tactic? Was he tired and thought he couldn´t follow your Phantom? Couldn´t he think of anything else? Was he convinced any other tactic would make him lose?

- I still have the slight feeling he played more of a mindgame. (A nasty one for sure) I have seen it before if players know each other well. The tactics change or are narrowing down to a reallly personal meta. Going to the point where one of the two uses any rule available because he knows otherwise the other one will win.

Or did he really know he was using a (from my point of view) rather annoying tactic and gloated about it afterwards?

- Do you, in hindsight, have an idea what you could have done to brake open the game sooner? (With the squad available I mean. It is nice people say you could have used something different, but you couldn´t)

- Did he appologize? (some of these questions might be more for your opponent, but I wouldn´t like exposing myself to 12 pages of hatred either)

- Not a question, but best wishes for any other tournament you enter in the future

It's muh interesting to have the personal emotional perspective on these cases. Hope you guys figure it out in the end.

Here's an interesting question. How do you make your opponent feel when you've both played a good game but he is obviously a little unhappy about losing?

What's the most gracious way to win?

here, the game developers themselves state that although it does seem like a game exploitation, there has been no documented case of the "fortress" tactic being employed successfully to win games...

Well, guess what: now there is a documented case. So where do we go from here?

From what the imp playes describes, it sounds to me like the reb player should have been kicked from the tournament, not because of any rules infringements, but for acting like a complete d*ck throughout and after the "game". That's the way you set standards - you can't just talk about proper behaviour, you have to enforce it when things go off the deep end. OR, let things degenerate to a point where people take things into their own hands, for instance by quitting games, staying away, and generally creating a very negative and unhealthy atmosphere.

A solution to the fortress: Start taking damage if you haven't exited your deployment zone at the beginning of the, say, 3rd turn. Let the opponent decide the distribution of damage amongst the fortress ships.

If a solution is needed, after the 3rd turn in the deployment zone all ships involved movement becomes red. Earning a stress. You'll have to move or let the opponent choose your moves.

Couldn't something along the lines of "If after executing the perform manoeuvre step (and you did not reveal a []0 manoeuvre), your ship has not moved, deal one face down damage card to it." work? That will hardly ever be relevant in proper games, since usually even if you bump, you will still have moved a bit. All it does is stop this kind of cheese. The opponent could just circle on the other side of the board and wait for you kill yourself.

Also, just imagine TIE swarms dog piling onto a few rebel ships, causing them all to take damage.

If a solution is needed, after the 3rd turn in the deployment zone all ships involved movement becomes red. Earning a stress. You'll have to move or let the opponent choose your moves.

And at that point, even if he could do what you intended, he'd fly all the ships off the board. So why not save some time and just say that the player loses the game?

Change of wording; the offending player is the one whose maneuvers are red. Or after doing the same maneuver 3 times in the deployment zone that meneuver becomes red untill you leave.

The point is to encourage the offending player to leave the zone, not sit there.

Change of wording; the offending player is the one whose maneuvers are red. Or after doing the same maneuver 3 times in the deployment zone that meneuver becomes red untill you leave.

The point is to encourage the offending player to leave the zone, not sit there.

Something along the lines of:

"If you choose a maneuver which results in your ship not moving due to being blocked by a friendly ship, the following turn that maneuver becomes a red maneuver".

...may work. No immediate ill effects from self-bumping (other than losing your action as normal). The next turn you either move on or do the same thing again and stress yourself, in which case the following turn you HAVE to choose a different move full stop. So you can self-block for a maximum of two turns, no more endless loops of 1 green forwards cramming yourself into a box for 40 minutes and waiting for your opponent to come to you.

Simple.

ok as kind of a newb to actual tactics as i am totally casual. would a directional ion rule help basically when you Ion a ship YOU pick the a direction the ship must move next turn.( in full disclosure the Y wing IS my favorite ship lol) would say that the rule could state that it moves in the opposite direction of the hit but that leaves too much to interpretation. this would also seem to eliminate falcon side flyers that exploit the edge of the board. Just a thought off the top of my head or make "Bombs" with momentum that move at the speed and DIRECTION that they were released that travel in a line until impact with something... including asteroids of course. that way you would give bombs a LONG reach but at a slower speed so you could dodge them. Also just want to say this has been one of the more interesting topics!!!!! might be a couple of stupid ideas but was just thinking and am not fully caffeinated yet..lol or the old moving asteroids around may be another alternative. Used to play this simple but pretty fun air combat game called sopwith. at the beginning of every turn you would roll a dice to see which direction clouds would move. Clouds cause damage. and granted it was hex based and the clouds would move only a small amount it did make flying around them more tricky. But good discussions and good topic... Not going to judge whose side i am on because i CAN see both sides. Brilliant tactics but not very fun but neither is getting all your ships getting potentially picked off by Phantoms all game..lol perhaps a rule that the ion effect makes ships uncloak as well but the ship still has to act as if it IS cloaked action wise? yeah Yeah I love me some Y wings..lol

14 pages! Screw this, I'm going down the pub!

My understanding is that this was a specific tactic against a Phantom build. Using traditional tactics probably limits his chances greatly, so he adapted. It's not great-looking, aesthetically, but the outrage is misplaced. He is in a win or go home scenario; is he supposed to line up like the Red Coats under some misguided ethos of "fair play" or is he allowed to use legal moves to try to win? The outrage is way worse than the "crime" IMO.

Historically I've used this tactic as mentioned early on since the 4X build daze (remember those) and it is a necessary tool to be used if the situation called for it. I've seen Hefty Han turn tail and run with his EU to stay out of range to collect a win but no pitchforks and torches about this particular CS Teflon move, just general disdain for the 1300's dominance.

Rich flew a great list that didn't rely on either Hefty Han or Phat Phantom, his tactics fit his build and let's be complementary on how he adapted to the META.

When differentiating Casual vs Premier level competition for a momento, players are expected to compete at the very highest level, which means every legal trick in the bag comes out to get the "W." Many of us who have travelled to out of state events have become friends but when playing in a top level event "business is business."

I see nothing wrong with a player trying to win legally with a tactic such as this at any competitive level event. It is encumbent on FFG to manage the rules and address thereby maintaining the "spirit of the game" landscape.

14 pages! Screw this, I'm going down the pub!

+10

Sportsmanlike? Doesn't matter. Legal? Doesn't matter. Viable? Doesn't matter.

And FFG should be smart enough to realize that the viability shouldn't be the key criteria, at least not the way they have seemed to define it. No, people aren't winning regionals/Nationals/Worlds with this. But clearly in some situations it is a viable strategy. And at the end of the day, X-Wing is a game, FFG is a game company, and games are supposed to be FUN. There are enough people in this thread alone who believe this to be a decidedly un-fun strategy. The reaction to these types of tactics by those on the receiving end of them are what FFG has to concern themselves with, and they have to concern themselves with it for all players and not just the competitive environment, where such tricks might be seen as justifiable.

So no, a rule change isn't needed to fix a broken unbeatable strategy. A rule change is necessary to remove bad play experiences and un-fun things from the game.

You speak for everyone on what is fun? There are just as many people here who didn't have a problem with it.

No, I don't. Plenty of people have spoken for themselves.

And not having a problem with it is a far cry from from being a person who thinks "I really really love that I can set up a block of ships that never moves. That is really fun." So while I may not be the arbiter of fun, FFG can be. If they look at two groups of people - one who says "We hate this" and another who only says "meh.", well, there is a pretty clear decision to be made.

For those arguing that this was his only viable tactic against Phantoms (which it wasn't) what was he going to do if he got to Round 4 against Morgan's list? Do the exact same thing? What if things had turned out different and he made it to Round 5 against a Phantom list? Forfeit since there's no time limit and no way(as some have claimed) that he can beat a Phantom with some measly X-wings and a Z?

Relying on one gimmick tactic to beat a prevalent list is a sure sign your list doesn't deserve to make it the Finals, much less become World Champion.

I read every post til about page 8 but then it was expanding faster than i could keep up to contribute.

Im off to band practice then the pub and hopefully people will have calmed down a bit by then so i can read it all before commenting.

I realise by posting this im compounding the problem for others but hey ho!

Nothing to ask Jiimbo. I think the expression of your experience shows what the result of this tactic is. If I see you at GenCon 2015, I'll buy you a beer.

Seconded!

Sounds good to me

In the meantime Jimbo have a virtual beer on me

For those arguing that this was his only viable tactic against Phantoms (which it wasn't) what was he going to do if he got to Round 4 against Morgan's list? Do the exact same thing? What if things had turned out different and he made it to Round 5 against a Phantom list? Forfeit since there's no time limit and no way(as some have claimed) that he can beat a Phantom with some measly X-wings and a Z?

Relying on one gimmick tactic to beat a prevalent list is a sure sign your list doesn't deserve to make it the Finals, much less become World Champion.

Easiest way I can see is to classify fortress locking as an infinite loop. That or a rule saying if a ship collides with the same unmoved friendly ship without moving two turns in a row it takes one damage.

@ Funkleton...

I just noticed your fleet composition, that deserves a +100, still LMAO!

After some hours of sleep this thread reaches 14 pages...

When was either player not playing X wing? Just because one or the other chooses not play it the way you would does not make it unsportsmanlike.

It is unsportsmanlike the very moment your rival is not satisfied with your behavior.

I don't like losing ships. Is killing my ships unsportsmanlike?

I honestly hope you realize that your example has nothing to do with behavior in the game. I may not like losing ships, and definitely no one likes to lose... But certainly, you know when your opponent is behaving correctly, independently of winning or losing... and when he doesn't..

The point of this entire thread is not a destroyed ship. The point is that the way you lose or win matters. How your opponent behaves on the table matters. And ultimately, the chosen tactic matters, especially when it is seem as lame, unfun and morally questionable (from a game's spirit perspective) by no small portion of the community.

why are people shooting the fortress strategy when it is the ACD phantom that forced the player to rely on that tactic? In fact, he only used that tactic in that 1 game where he was fighting an opposing ACD phantom, which would be very very difficult to beat via conventional methods.

We should be looking at the reasons why the fortress strategy had to be used, i mean in a tournament I'd do anything legal to win, if me flying straight in had a very high chance of me losing, I'd fortress too

I can very much guarantee you that had his opponent not been an ACD phantom, he wouldn't have resorted to the fortress

While I agree that the fortress move is complete bollocks and CERTAINLY not "fly casual", I think there is also some merit to this argument; FFG need to ask themselves, not just how they want to penalize this strategy, but maybe also what sort of meta they have created with the Phantom. Let's see them sort THAT one out.

Ah, I see... So that's the justification in this case... "The Phantoms made me do it !!"

Poor rebel player, he wanted to play nice, but look what FFG forced him to do...

Then, what will be next? "The voices in my head made me do it !!"?

If you're opponent jumps and starts cheering and dancing then who cares. You're the one who gets to make the choice if it bothers you or not. Friday I played the german champ and we both needed a big win. When he took out my Han he jumped up and yelled yes! Honestly it didn't bother me at all I was able to laugh at it.

If you're opponent jumps and starts cheering and dancing then who cares. You're the one who gets to make the choice if it bothers you or not. Friday I played the world champ and we both needed a big win. When he took out my Han he jumped up and yelled yes! Honestly it didn't bother me at all I was able to laugh at it.

Well its good to know you are so emotionally uninterested that winning or losing at Worlds means nothing to you and should mean nothing to anyone else. But if that is true why are you still posting in this thread so vehemently? Your kind of attitude is the exact reason I stopped play 40k competitively.