So Richards tactic for fighting phantoms in this tournament was to simply not play? He fortressed, waiting for time to be called before he made a last ditch effort to kill a ship so he doesn't lose due to initiative, knowing full well all his opponent had to do was continue to fly away instead of engaging. That was it? So pretty much his strategy for Worlds for fighting Phantoms was that he had no strategy. He was simply "making a statement" about how IMBA Phantoms are.

Thats a total load of rubbish. What was he going to do if he ran into any other Phantom driver in this tourney? Same thing? Fortress up and pray? That's a crap plan, especially if its "so easy to take apart" as other posters have claimed. And Richard should have and could have come up with something better if he actually expected to compete seriously at Worlds.

The shuttle is DESIGNED to be able to stall as part of its place in the design space of the game, and it pays for that with a stress and no action. Claiming that because Lambdas can stall, that every ship should be able to stall is nonsensical.

So Richards tactic for fighting phantoms in this tournament was to simply not play? He fortressed, waiting for time to be called before he made a last ditch effort to kill a ship so he doesn't lose due to initiative, knowing full well all his opponent had to do was continue to fly away instead of engaging. That was it? So pretty much his strategy for Worlds for fighting Phantoms was that he had no strategy. He was simply "making a statement" about how IMBA Phantoms are.

Thats a total load of rubbish. What was he going to do if he ran into any other Phantom driver in this tourney? Same thing? Fortress up and pray? That's a crap plan, especially if its "so easy to take apart" as other posters have claimed. And Richard should have and could have come up with something better if he actually expected to compete seriously at Worlds.

The shuttle is DESIGNED to be able to stall as part of its place in the design space of the game, and it pays for that with a stress and no action. Claiming that because Lambdas can stall, that every ship should be able to stall is nonsensical.

Why the Personal attack? He use the designed movement of the ships he had to stall. He played his build to the best of his ability hoping that the other player would do as many of you are asking Richard to do fly into a trap. That He avoided the trap of the Design of the Phantom and pulled out a very close win is making some of you get real personal about his logic and knowledge of the game. I bet if we did a search on the post from these attacks on prior post you might see they feel like this about a great many things in the game.

I can't count how many losses I had to a phantom doing a Hit and run on me. Where they blew up one ship and few away from me for the rest of the time. Un-sportsman or smart. I say smart. Even thought at the time I felt like they were abusing the game.

Why exactly this people have zero problem with it when it comes to lambdas ?

Or when you bump your own swarm to get the most ships into arc of fire of one ship you want to focus down ?

This kind of game mechanichs allow for creative play, and it adds depth to the playing field. Whenever people try to justify their zealotry against whatever doesn't seem to be "spirit of the game" in their subjective opinion, they should think if the game is better with it or withouth it first, because it definitly is a better game with it.

Now, instead of creating threads about banning it, why don't we give it a go, try it, try against it, and make a more responsible assesment of the tactic ?

In case there's a miscommunication here, I'm referring to fortressing, not hitting your own ships once to get a positioning advantage. That's not the same as traffic jamming a swarm or taking the red zero on a Lambda.

People don't have an issue with the zero maneuver on the Lambda, because it's A: outright on the dial and B: it's a red maneuver. It can go slow but not park. Likewise, not many people take issue with a TIE swarm crashing into each other for a positioning advantage. It only happens on one round, it's not a loop, and the TIEs still move.

What people take issue with is when ships are positioned such that they can't move at all in their maneuver and then that same maneuver is taken over and over so that they don't move at all. Blocking, both of enemy craft and of your own is very much a part of the game, but blocking isn't fortressing.

This is a game of dogfighting spaceships, a bunch of ships all jammed into each other running their engines on max like two elephants banging their heads together over and over while completely idle or two Falcons locked together by the mandibles and not moving as pretty thematically jarring and doesn't make for particularly enjoyable gameplay either.

I can't count how many losses I had to a phantom doing a Hit and run on me. Where they blew up one ship and few away from me for the rest of the time. Un-sportsman or smart. I say smart. Even thought at the time I felt like they were abusing the game.

Do you mean killing one ship and then going and hiding all game?

Im pretty sure that everyone that has been on the receiving end of the Phantom has some horror stories to share. They aren't infallible. I've killed plenty of Phantoms without relying on blind luck. I've also been killed by more Phantoms than I've killed. They have their weaknesses, and if you choose to not exploit them, then you're choosing to not play the game. Stress them, block their decloak, lure into asteroids, win PS bid, use turrets. Hell, make nonsensical maneuvers to throw off their game. Phantom pilots usually try to see where their opponent is going to fly to try and box his phantom in and then manuever to escape those kill zones.

Hell, did anyone pay attention to the Final? What was amazing was not how Paul beat Morgan with Fat Han, its how he baited him into those asteroids with some ballsy maneuvering and then tore Morgan apart with his Talas. Hans turret and tank was almost a nonfactor for that game. He didn't beat that Phantom with a traditional counter, he beat it with excellent flying and those "flimsy Z's".

Why exactly this people have zero problem with it when it comes to lambdas ?

Or when you bump your own swarm to get the most ships into arc of fire of one ship you want to focus down ?

This kind of game mechanichs allow for creative play, and it adds depth to the playing field. Whenever people try to justify their zealotry against whatever doesn't seem to be "spirit of the game" in their subjective opinion, they should think if the game is better with it or withouth it first, because it definitly is a better game with it.

Now, instead of creating threads about banning it, why don't we give it a go, try it, try against it, and make a more responsible assesment of the tactic ?

In case there's a miscommunication here, I'm referring to fortressing, not hitting your own ships once to get a positioning advantage. That's not the same as traffic jamming a swarm or taking the red zero on a Lambda.

People don't have an issue with the zero maneuver on the Lambda, because it's A: outright on the dial and B: it's a red maneuver. It can go slow but not park. Likewise, not many people take issue with a TIE swarm crashing into each other for a positioning advantage. It only happens on one round, it's not a loop, and the TIEs still move.

What people take issue with is when ships are positioned such that they can't move at all in their maneuver and then that same maneuver is taken over and over so that they don't move at all. Blocking, both of enemy craft and of your own is very much a part of the game, but blocking isn't fortressing.

This is a game of dogfighting spaceships, a bunch of ships all jammed into each other running their engines on max like two elephants banging their heads together over and over while completely idle or two Falcons locked together by the mandibles and not moving as pretty thematically jarring and doesn't make for particularly enjoyable gameplay either.

I can't count how many losses I had to a phantom doing a Hit and run on me. Where they blew up one ship and few away from me for the rest of the time. Un-sportsman or smart. I say smart. Even thought at the time I felt like they were abusing the game.

Do you mean killing one ship and then going and hiding all game?

The only way to " fix " this is to completely change the game to where ships don't bump but crash and or move threw the other ships. Again it comes down to the holy lambda vs other ships.

Im pretty sure that everyone that has been on the receiving end of the Phantom has some horror stories to share. They aren't infallible. I've killed plenty of Phantoms without relying on blind luck. I've also been killed by more Phantoms than I've killed. They have their weaknesses, and if you choose to not exploit them, then you're choosing to not play the game. Stress them, block their decloak, lure into asteroids, win PS bid, use turrets. Hell, make nonsensical maneuvers to throw off their game. Phantom pilots usually try to see where their opponent is going to fly to try and box his phantom in and then manuever to escape those kill zones.

Hell, did anyone pay attention to the Final? What was amazing was not how Paul beat Morgan with Fat Han, its how he baited him into those asteroids with some ballsy maneuvering and then tore Morgan apart with his Talas. Hans turret and tank was almost a nonfactor for that game. He didn't beat that Phantom with a traditional counter, he beat it with excellent flying and those "flimsy Z's".

What about the Anti Fat Han crowd.. You know how they feel about that ship. 30% of the post are about feelings so we need to not count them out of the mob.

The only way to " fix " this is to completely change the game to where ships don't bump but crash and or move threw the other ships. Again it comes down to the holy lambda vs other ships.

Could you rephrase that? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Stop holding up the Lambda as your example as why this is an acceptable tactic. Its already been stated why the Lambda can do what it does. Its not to promote "Fortressing" as a viable tactic.

Stop holding up the Lambda as your example as why this is an acceptable tactic. Its already been stated why the Lambda can do what it does. Its not to promote "Fortressing" as a viable tactic.

And why is that? Tell me more about how you feel. I can't find this in the rules so we need to work threw the feelings until we can understand it.

The Lambda can't fortress by itself anyway. It can do a 0 maneuver and gets a stress token for doing it (which the prevents it from stopping again the next turn) Ships stopping is in the game by design (Lambda, Inertial Dampeners), but they don't stay stopped.

I'm not sure what the Lambda's particular relevance to fortressing is: the Falcon is the classic ship used for fortressing.

Hmm what if you have a wingman... and he removed the stress?

Lambda still has no action, plus you've spent 16 points on gluing a then useless actionless TIE fighter to it.

You know Many peoples knee-jerk reaction to the phantom was 360 shooting. I say we should use the same and have everyone take Ions to break up any kind of " form square " tactic. Even thought this is not going to deal with 80% of the other builds. I think my victory's would be much easier if my players never moved. Or never ran away with their wounded ships to avoid giving me points I should have gotten. Because it makes me feel bad.

Not sure what the Lambda's role in this discussion has become? People have been complaining about Lambda fortressing almost as long as Falcon Fortressing i.e. since the tactic was first discovered however long ago. And Lambda Fortresses, like Falcon Fortresses and This Rebel Fortress is not a particularly good tactic and relies on luck to win more than anything else.

Lambda still has no action, plus you've spent 16 points on gluing a then useless actionless TIE fighter to it.

Hmm your lambda players need to try advanced sensors. In my play groups the Lambda players are very good and you must know how to deal with their fly casual ticks.

A self-ionizing fortress would be much easier to maintain.

No, if FFG feels the need to deal with fortresses all they need to do is classify it as abusing an infinite loop (which is against the tournament rules). A fortress isn't subjective: a player is either locking their ships together for multiple turns or they aren't and a TO can see that.

EDIT: If you're having issue from Lambda fortresses just post a thread on these forums and you'll have no shortage of players giving you strategies to shred them. The reason fortresses aren't banned is because nine times out of ten they suck. They're less effective than flying "properly" and just provide what FFG described as a "negative play experience" for the opponent.

Not sure what the Lambda's role in this discussion has become? People have been complaining about Lambda fortressing almost as long as Falcon Fortressing i.e. since the tactic was first discovered however long ago. And Lambda Fortresses, like Falcon Fortresses and This Rebel Fortress is not a particularly good tactic and relies on luck to win more than anything else.

Exactly. The gist is that the rebel player was relying on blind luck to win against a Phantom. And that's a piss poor strategy to take to Worlds and expect to come out on top. And if he wasn't expecting to come out on top, why did he bother showing up since this was "serious business and Fly Casual has no place in it."

Not sure what the Lambda's role in this discussion has become? People have been complaining about Lambda fortressing almost as long as Falcon Fortressing i.e. since the tactic was first discovered however long ago. And Lambda Fortresses, like Falcon Fortresses and This Rebel Fortress is not a particularly good tactic and relies on luck to win more than anything else.

So does rolling dice.

There was plenty of Fly Casual at Worlds. The majority of the non-Fly Casual was coming from the livestream comments with people not even invovled getting irate about other people being nice to each other.

Not sure what the Lambda's role in this discussion has become? People have been complaining about Lambda fortressing almost as long as Falcon Fortressing i.e. since the tactic was first discovered however long ago. And Lambda Fortresses, like Falcon Fortresses and This Rebel Fortress is not a particularly good tactic and relies on luck to win more than anything else.

So does rolling dice.

What? If you're not going to contribute anything sensical to the discussion please bow out.

Exactly. The gist is that the rebel player was relying on blind luck to win against a Phantom. And that's a piss poor strategy to take to Worlds and expect to come out on top. And if he wasn't expecting to come out on top, why did he bother showing up since this was "serious business and Fly Casual has no place in it."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. The closest I can come is that the fault in this situation is FFGs for creating the Phantom in the first place and that the Rebel player did the best he could out of a bad situation. Is that what you meant?

There was plenty of Fly Casual at Worlds. The majority of the non-Fly Casual was coming from the livestream comments with people not even invovled getting irate about other people being nice to each other.

I know. I can't believe how rude people got about how some people played. All the crazy from Typo using the " Hit a Rock " sign ... Later I was told he lost a match because he forgot the ship shooting at him was on a rock and lost a major tournament. And others upset on how Paul had his falcon move when it bumped the phantom. I wish people would stay to the basic Fly Casual and be good sports when they see someone out think them and stop lashing out like they are cheating.

No. Im saying that out of all the tools he could have used to develop an anti-phantom strategy he picked the "Rebel Fortress", relying on luck and even an opponent's sense of fair play to scrape by.

No. Im saying that out of all the tools he could have used to develop an anti-phantom strategy he picked the "Rebel Fortress", relying on luck and even an opponent's sense of fair play to scrape by.

With his build in mind.. Can you explain more about the tools he could have used?