This IS an Internet forum so I suppose by definition we need to get bent out of shape about things.

Should we only ever fix loopholes and bad plays in the rules if there's truly broken?

Honestly? Yes. If it's not truly broken it will take care of itself due to the simple fact that it doesn't really work. Which is exactly where fortressing has found itself for the past few years. One showing in one game in one tournament where it needed divine intervention on the dice rolls to come out on top and didn't go on to win the event doesn't signify a problem severe enough to warrant anyone's attention.

No, it has always been an issue.

Where is your data to support that 'fortressing' is causing an issue in tournaments?

You have made a claim, please support it with some documented facts, not baseless opinion.

Self bumping is actually pretty crucial to a lot of strategies that involve the Lambda as well as any blocking ship.

No, it has always been an issue.

Where is your data to support that 'fortressing' is causing an issue in tournaments?

You have made a claim, please support it with some documented facts, not baseless opinion.

So it only counts if it's an issue in tournaments? General player discontent doesn't matter at all?

Because we've had rather constant debate over the tactic. It comes and goes, but every time it comes up it turns into a big issue. We've hit 12 pages of discussion in what, 4 hours? I'd call that an issue.

So it only counts if it's an issue in tournaments? General player discontent doesn't matter at all?

Because we've had rather constant debate over the tactic. It comes and goes, but every time it comes up it turns into a big issue. We've hit 12 pages of discussion in what, 4 hours? I'd call that an issue.

So you can't provide data that proves 'fortressing' is affecting tournaments?

Where is the data to support your 'general player discontent' claim?

Please link me to your survey and subsequent analysis - or is that just your opinion again?

Fortressing is a storm in a tea-cup.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

Then if ffg doesn't like what they saw at the world's then they can just ban the fortress tactic.

"if for 3 consecutive turns all your ships do not move, and continue to collide with one another, without the interference from your opponent, they are considered destroyed", game over

This kind of ruling, gives you some leeway.

You can do it for a couple of turns but are then have to break away or you forfeit the game.

Also it's not to often none of your ships move

Also keeps you from getting locked down by your opponent.

Game keeps moving forward

I think you have to look at this in the eyes of FFG. They're a business, much like the NFL. If someone does something legal that simply just "looks bad", they will then review it for the future of the game. They're not in the business of letting their game look bad simply because "it's legal". They will change the rules, much like the NFL does.

The two events that I could see upset the judges were:

1: the twitch streamed match between typo and sablegryphon where typo ran up and down the side all game long. Perfectly legal, but was arguable the worst streamed match in history, during their worlds event.

2: This top 16 match that had no shots until the last minute of a 75 minute match.

Both were high visibility, both had perfectly legal play that was simply unsellable as a game. They'll review it. Will they change it? I don't know, but they sure as hell noticed it and will talk about it.

He didn't really say fortressing was affecting tournaments, he said people have been complaining about it and insisting it be banned so ehow since the falcon came out. For evidence, search the forum for "falcon fortress".

Please, the fortress strategy has existed for 2 years now. One appearance in the top tables, and it is now an "issues".

No, it has always been an issue. People have disliked it from the first time it appeared, and it has spawned countless complaints, threads, and debates over the nature of the tactic.

Should we only ever fix loopholes and bad plays in the rules if there's truly broken? Is douchebag play to be encouraged just as long you think it's beatable enough?

There are things which, win or lose, create a very negative play experience. This is one of those things. That's the point I was trying to get at earlier - if it's a game that you couldn't present to a potential player without a lot of explaining and caveat, it needs to be seriously considered.

And lets' flip it around - is the game BETTER with fortressing in place? Does it enable interesting, unique gameplay? Does anyone ever come out of a game with a fortress going "Wow, that was one of the most awesome games I've ever played!!"

It shouldn't matter if it can be beat, or how good or bad you think the tactic is. Is the game a better place with it in place, or removed? Because that's the thing I never see the defenders address. I see lots of "Anything goes" and "Sportsmanship is for wimps" and "It's not that good, L2Play NOOB HA HA!" silliness. Can anyone suggest any possible way this is better for the game?

So it only counts if it's an issue in tournaments? General player discontent doesn't matter at all?

Because we've had rather constant debate over the tactic. It comes and goes, but every time it comes up it turns into a big issue. We've hit 12 pages of discussion in what, 4 hours? I'd call that an issue.

So you can't provide data that proves 'fortressing' is affecting tournaments?

Where is the data to support your 'general player discontent' claim?

Please link me to your survey and subsequent analysis - or is that just your opinion again?

Fortressing is a storm in a tea-cup.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

Where's your data that it's not? Because seriously, the "You prove your side with data that mine doesn't need because it's obviously right" is rather classic.

If you don't think there are people unhappy with fortressing, you haven't been paying attention. No, I don't have surveys or data, any more than you do. No, I don't have numbers on how many tournaments it's disrupted, any more than you do. If screaming "SHOW ME THE DATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" into the phone is the best you've got... well, you had you at "strawman", I suppose, because you've got nothing else.

Yes the game is better with fortressing because it allows 3 x's and a z to bear a whisper list which is insanely hard to do. At world's the objective is to destroy 12 more points than your opponent eoes. We saw an unconventional strategy and risk pay off. Again the tie player can realize what a happening immediately and stay back.

But wait... everyone's been saying it's not a problem because it doesn't work. So which is it? Should we leave fortressing in because it's a horrible tactic that's trivially easy to beat, or should be leave it in because it's the only way to beat one of the strongest builds in the game?

Yes the game is better with fortressing because it allows 3 x's and a z to bear a whisper list which is insanely hard to do. At world's the objective is to destroy 12 more points than your opponent eoes. We saw an unconventional strategy and risk pay off. Again the tie player can realize what a happening immediately and stay back.

But wait... everyone's been saying it's not a problem because it doesn't work. So which is it? Should we leave fortressing in because it's a horrible tactic that's trivially easy to beat, or should be leave it in because it's the only way to beat one of the strongest builds in the game?

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

Where's your data that it's not? Because seriously, the "You prove your side with data that mine doesn't need because it's obviously right" is rather classic.

If you don't think there are people unhappy with fortressing, you haven't been paying attention. No, I don't have surveys or data, any more than you do. No, I don't have numbers on how many tournaments it's disrupted, any more than you do. If screaming "SHOW ME THE DATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" into the phone is the best you've got... well, you had you at "strawman", I suppose, because you've got nothing else.

The nature of proof does not work like that, Buhallin.

You made claims.

I asked you to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

You could not do so.

You don't have data to support that 'fortressing' is an issue affecting tournaments.

Yes, there are people who are unhappy with 'fortressing', just as there are people who are happy with it.

That much is obvious from reading this thread.

What you have is merely your opinion on the topic because you don't have facts that are supported by data.

Where's your data that it's not? Because seriously, the "You prove your side with data that mine doesn't need because it's obviously right" is rather classic.

If you don't think there are people unhappy with fortressing, you haven't been paying attention. No, I don't have surveys or data, any more than you do. No, I don't have numbers on how many tournaments it's disrupted, any more than you do. If screaming "SHOW ME THE DATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" into the phone is the best you've got... well, you had you at "strawman", I suppose, because you've got nothing else.

The nature of proof does not work like that, Buhallin.

You made claims.

I asked you to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

You could not do so.

You don't have data to support that 'fortressing' is an issue affecting tournaments.

Yes, there are people who are unhappy with 'fortressing', just as there are people who are happy with it.

That much is obvious from reading this thread.

What you have is merely your opinion on the topic because you don't have facts that are supported by data.

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. That said, should it reach a point where it becomes a real problem, they will step in and put an end to that tactic. Till then, they don't see any problem with it, and it remains a viable strategy in the game, despite it being unsightly.

EDIT: at the same time, there is that official rule where ship models MUST be placed on their bases, which most of us assume is purely for cosmetic reasons. If such a rule could make it into competition rules, I can see the possibility of the fortress tactic being banned from an aesthetic POV

I think it's a genuine tactic. One boring as tactic to play and play against, I have used it with a couple of lambdas to win against fat han. There are some tactics to beat this tactic too. I think if someone wants to rob themselves of the full gaming experience that is xwing by playing like this let them. If someone wants to use this tactic at worlds of all places so be it. I would want to show how good I can fly not how good I can park.

After reading 8 1/2 pages, here are my thoughts.

Basically, Jiimbo (the Imperial player) got hosed on bad dice rolls in the end. As for facing this tactic, someone mentioned assault missiles and ruthlessness being counters. Yep, those are perfect counters to this. Should you build a deck with them? That's up to you. Your list choices will never counter everything. That's the point. Someone pulls this "cheesefest" and you aren't in the best shape to deal with it, well, too bad, suck it up and figure out a way to deal with it. Some of my most fun lists to play are missile & bomb heavy. Would I use them in a serious tournament? Probably not.

The only reason the Rebel player won was because of bad dice rolls. That sucks. It happens. (My son once rolled 5 attack blanks, followed by another 5 attack blanks. What are the odds on that?)

I feel for Jiimbo and I'm glad to see he posted in this thread. I wish him better luck in future tournaments (unless he is playing against me.)

I've always thought it's strange that the only penalty for bumping is losing an action. Maybe they should increase it to doing damage? Maybe not instant damage, maybe a dice roll in a similar vain to asteroids.

You made claims.

I asked you to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

You could not do so.

As was pointed out before, that wasn't the claim I made. Apparently, you read forums as well as you read rules.

Buhallin, in post #222 you stated that fortressing 'has always been an issue'.

How has fortressing always been an issue in tournaments?

(I'll ignore your personal attack about how well I read.)

Honestly, I'm probably objectively compromised on this topic since i know both players personally and I'm thoroughly disgusted by Richard's game play towards a friend.

Are those two players friends of each other? If so, did they practice that strategy against each other? Just asking.

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

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.

Really though, the only reason this would need errata'ing at all is if it actually becomes the dominant, 'best' way to play. As it stands, while it does have certain advantages, it seems like it would be relatively easy to beat; at least with the right list. The fact that none of your ships get actions makes them pretty vulnerable.

Where's your data that it's not? Because seriously, the "You prove your side with data that mine doesn't need because it's obviously right" is rather classic.

If you don't think there are people unhappy with fortressing, you haven't been paying attention. No, I don't have surveys or data, any more than you do. No, I don't have numbers on how many tournaments it's disrupted, any more than you do. If screaming "SHOW ME THE DATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" into the phone is the best you've got... well, you had you at "strawman", I suppose, because you've got nothing else.

The nature of proof does not work like that, Buhallin.

You made claims.

I asked you to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

You could not do so.

You don't have data to support that 'fortressing' is an issue affecting tournaments.

Yes, there are people who are unhappy with 'fortressing', just as there are people who are happy with it.

That much is obvious from reading this thread.

What you have is merely your opinion on the topic because you don't have facts that are supported by data.

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. That said, should it reach a point where it becomes a real problem, they will step in and put an end to that tactic. Till then, they don't see any problem with it, and it remains a viable strategy in the game, despite it being unsightly.

EDIT: at the same time, there is that official rule where ship models MUST be placed on their bases, which most of us assume is purely for cosmetic reasons. If such a rule could make it into competition rules, I can see the possibility of the fortress tactic being banned from an aesthetic POV

Not necessarily, it states that they must be placed on their bases. It doesn't mean they have to be at the same height. Most will be between 1 or 2 stems or even up to 3. A lot of players set their models unevenly not for fortress builds but just to keep the models from colliding when bases are close together.