(that doing the fortress is being an unsport, what the hell)

It is, kinda. Completely legal but it's so obviously an unintentional derp of the game mechanics it feels so wrong. As thematically jarring as it gets too. Nobody would question it if X-wing was a eurogame, but it isn't.

Prefer to what?

Unintentional doesn't mean it is being unsport. Creative play is by definition use of game mechanics in ways non intended by the creators. It feels wrong to you, on your subjective opinion. As far i know, FFG hasn't voiced itself saying it is unintentional, and it shouldn't be used.

Seriously, all of you who put burden on the player instead of the rules, makes me wonder if you actually have some sort of a point instead of "it... it just... feels wrong...".

And i prefer to keep any mechanic that adds depth to the game, instead of removing every single thing that annoys scrubs who prefer to just roll dice, because as far i have read in this thread, none have come even close to some sort of rules changes addressing what you perceive as an issue. Nah... it is better to just blame the player, and circlejerk around how an unsport he is for playing to win in a competitive setting. And that's why i can't answer your "to what?". Because you are not even trying to discuss the rules.

I'm real glad you accuse me of making personal attacks then proceed to make nothing but cherry-picked hostile remarks and refer to anyone else who has the same view as me as dice rolling scrubs. Go wash off your hypocrisy.

People getting mad because a guy tried to either fight at his own terms against a list which gives his list fits, or get a draw.

More news at 11.

LMAO!

This just into the news desk, I'm hip deep into a bottle of vino.

Man, I wish I had been able to make it to Flight 2 with my Zed swarm!

And if time is an issue, after the 60 minute point, every ship on the board takes 1 damage. At 75 minutes, every ship takes 2 damage, etc.

That unfairly hurts squads with lots of small ships vs a few tanks. Two YTs take two damage while a 7 tie swarm takes 7.

Can't help but feel you're getting way too angry about the condemnation of fortressing for someone who doesn't use the strategy themselves.

The reason you can't answer my "prefer to what" is because you're screwing up your grammar. Preference is comparative and you used it in a non-comparative way. That simple.

Seriously, all of you who put burden on the player instead of the rules, makes me wonder if you actually have some sort of a point instead of "it... it just... feels wrong...".

And here you aren't making sense yet again. "Put the burden on the rules"? What's that supposed to mean? Right now it's a legal tactic and therefore permitted within the ruleset, this thread isn't about if it's legal or not. It's about whether it benefits or damages the game environment. About whether it should be legal. Yes, that's fundamentally subjective and that's why this thread is twenty pages long.

As far i know, FFG hasn't voiced itself saying it is unintentional, and it shouldn't be used.

GenCon interview. Go watch it.

And i prefer to keep any mechanic that adds depth to the game, instead of removing every single thing that annoys scrubs who prefer to just roll dice, because as far i have read in this thread, none have come even close to some sort of rules changes addressing what you perceive as an issue.

You just attacked me for being vague, then all you can say is "adds depth." And as for not discussing the rules or suggesting any rules changes? Have you seriously missed the multiple pages of discussing potential alterations of the rules? Or maybe the entire second thread spawned off of one suggestion?

Before you start turning to personal attacks against us "scrubs", get your **** facts right.

And finally, calling people disagreeing with him "dice rolling scrubs" from someone aggressively defending fortressing.

The irony of this is so thick you could make swords out of it.

And finally, calling people disagreeing with him "dice rolling scrubs" from someone aggressively defending fortressing.

The irony of this is so thick you could make swords out of it.

Irony swords are inherently weaker than steely ones.

sigh

This is why we can't have nice things. Emotions are apparently plenty high. And by a lot of people who were not affected by this ONE GAME. Far too many are hung up on the Fortress. Quite honestly, it hasn't shown up nearly enough to show that it is an overpowered strategy. Not fun, yes, but not gamebreaking.

Considering that the designers were also not happy with the broadcast of Typo's game, I would think that they may realize that the issue is the lack of encouragement for engagement. Especially in single elimination. What a lot of you have to realize, is that both single elimination or Swiss and the time limit (or lack thereof) changes the viability of strategies immensely. Yes, it should be looked at and discussed, but in the proper context.

Fortress and Richard are just the scapegoats most of you want to focus on.

-

-

sigh

This is why we can't have nice things. Emotions are apparently plenty high. And by a lot of people who were not affected by this ONE GAME. Far too many are hung up on the Fortress. Quite honestly, it hasn't shown up nearly enough to show that it is an overpowered strategy. Not fun, yes, but not gamebreaking.

Considering that the designers were also not happy with the broadcast of Typo's game, I would think that they may realize that the issue is the lack of encouragement for engagement. Especially in single elimination. What a lot of you have to realize, is that both single elimination or Swiss and the time limit (or lack thereof) changes the viability of strategies immensely. Yes, it should be looked at and discussed, but in the proper context.

Fortress and Richard are just the scapegoats most of you want to focus on.

well said.

we r up to 400+ posts and interest in this issue is only just starting to peeter out.

Wow. Just ... wow.

Was gone for most of the weekend. Came back and spent forever reading this thread.

Only to find out ... Fortresses ... THE SKY IS FALLING ... AGAIN.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What would the community's response be to two players, each of whom only needed a draw, both fortressing the whole game? I can't wait to read that thread...

OMG! I come back from the pub and it's 21 pages!!!

Let it die!

What would the community's response be to two players, each of whom only needed a draw, both fortressing the whole game? I can't wait to read that thread...

Then the player with initiative would win... No draw.

OMG! I come back from the pub and it's 21 pages!!!

Let it die!

Lets go back to the pub, I'll meet you there

Can we move past someone trying to be right and wrong and go to the place where we discuss if this is a plus for the strategy of the game or if it is bad for the playability of the game?

I know that if I was a new player getting into the game and saw this as a viable and even big event winning possibility of a game at its highest level I would immediately be turned off. I will be watching and rewatching and analyzing both of the "stall games" broadcast and see if I can "break" it in either game. I'm thinking that currently, being the one that engages puts m at a disadvantage unless I know I can overwhelm on the first pass (tie swarm rides again!).

This also speaks to the disparity between red and green dice. Red Unmodified still beats green most days. Sheilds still shift power. Someone else mentioned the damage deck imbalance, I'm mostly there with you.

With the best and worst part of the game in the spotlight, how did our game come across? I'm feeling like the answer is "not well". Pretty sure FFG feels the same. Can it recover? I think so. What will get lost on that shuffle? What are we willing to lose to see the game improve?

OMG! I come back from the pub and it's 21 pages!!!

Let it die!

Lets go back to the pub, I'll meet you there

Too late, they were starting to wipe the tables down when I left!

Rakky, be sure to factor the fact that Typo's game was swiss, while Richards was single elimination. Single elimination makes a lot of cheesy strategies more viable.

Can we move past someone trying to be right and wrong and go to the place where we discuss if this is a plus for the strategy of the game or if it is bad for the playability of the game?

I know that if I was a new player getting into the game and saw this as a viable and even big event winning possibility of a game at its highest level I would immediately be turned off. I will be watching and rewatching and analyzing both of the "stall games" broadcast and see if I can "break" it in either game. I'm thinking that currently, being the one that engages puts m at a disadvantage unless I know I can overwhelm on the first pass (tie swarm rides again!).

This also speaks to the disparity between red and green dice. Red Unmodified still beats green most days. Sheilds still shift power. Someone else mentioned the damage deck imbalance, I'm mostly there with you.

With the best and worst part of the game in the spotlight, how did our game come across? I'm feeling like the answer is "not well". Pretty sure FFG feels the same. Can it recover? I think so. What will get lost on that shuffle? What are we willing to lose to see the game improve?

I think this is essentially the OP. This is a log drawn out thread and there are elements on both sides that I can see as valid. I'll share that I didn't get into this game during Wave 2 because I walked into a local tournament and saw a number of double falcon builds facing other double falcon builds. I didn't know anything about the game system, etc., but that struck me as ridiculous enough that I avoided getting into the game until a wave later and realized how good it was. So, the strategies and tactics players use within absolutely does affect whether or not people get into the game. Will this one game affect it? Probably not, but if it, or other forms of it become a regular tactic it certainly will and it will need to be addressed.

How about:

If an player's ships overlap and do not move (without making contact with enemy ships) for two consecutive turns, on the third activation phase, if the ships still have not moved, the overlapping ships take 1 damage and may not attack this round. This penalty continues to take effect every additional turn these conditions are met.

Would anyone have problems with this? I say they address it before it gets worse. Especially with turret-equipped VT-49's that still take actions if they bump.

I think that the fact that on the biggest stage, under different circumstances, 4 completely different builds decided not playing the game was the best way to "win" is a problem. Add that these were broadcast and will now be examples of "the best" to new and old players alike and I think we can all agree this isn't the game we want going forward.

The question is... We're these both "one offs" and will these "tactics" become tendy enough to need changes? I think they might given previous "best" performers. Does anyone think either strategy is GOOD for the game?

The lack of engaging is tied to in game mechanical issues.

Richard was going to have a very hard time with the decloak of the Phantom. He chose to cover his flanks with the edge of the board.

Typo took advantage of the fact that it's incredibly difficult to kill a Fat Han in 75 min. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to win.

Richard's game wasn't broadcast, as far as I am aware. Typo's was. And what do you mean by 4 different builds? I am just aware of the issues with Richard's and Typo's games, so 2 players, 2 different builds.

Quite honestly, the finals showed why the "wait till the opponent commits" strategy is a bit popular at the top. I think it was last year at Gencon, when the Rebel player lost, and he said it was because he turned before the swarm. And look at what happened when Morgan was baited into the asteroids.

Well, I just don't think strategies that involve stalling are good for the game. I'm using "stalling" in the general sense here, and not as defined in a rulebook, so please don't argue about preventing the game turns from advancing here.

The solution is absolutely simple and exists in another sport already. Simply give a judge/TO/whatever discretion to first warn and then give penalties in the event a player isn't constantly trying to be assertive. I am not going to get into what the penalties should actually be. That's an entirely different discussion.

To see what I'm talking about, do a google search for "stalling in wrestling." In case you're wondering: YES, you can be penalized for stalling even if you're losing.

For how this would probably have played out in this tourney, a judge would have noticed this tactic and given a verbal warning. If the player or players continue to not play to advance their position (in this case to decrease the point value of the opposing player's list before time is called or until the opposing player's list reaches zero points) they are assessed a penalty.

This is of course subjective, but in my experience it's extremely easy to spot "stalling" and call it out. I believe this is the best solution here, because it avoids unintended results of changing the mechanics of bumping in general.

Quasistellar, I agree with you, but there are a healthy number (or unhealthy, in my opinion) of players who argue that stalling or fortessing is a valid tactic because the rules don't say otherwise.

Common sense isn't a priority for these types of players, so having something in writing that forbids it will help prevent unnecessary bickering.