Richards build was custom designed to take out Fat Han, to the exclusion of all else. He said so himself. If you expect to face 3 things in the "Meta": Fat Han, Phantom, Swarm, and you get destroyed by one of those things because you didnt plan to face it, then your list is simply bad.

I'd tend to think that if your build can handle 2 of the 3 it's a pretty good build. You need to use tactics to come out on top of the match-up that you are weak against, which is what happened here.

People can disagree with whether or not that tactic was cheesy (it is a little cheesy) and whether it's worth FFG doing anything about it (they shouldn't) but it was a valid and legal move taken by a player to mitigate a weakness in his list.

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.

I don't get it.

Because this is not a discussion thread, it turned out thanks to bipolar in a kneejerk reaction to someone who played to win, because they feel that's wrong. To be honest, i praise his patience, because that's a very bad match up for his list.

Seriously, just read what the discussion is about last page, the guy is saying that he shouldn't had brought that list as some sort of argument for the point he is trying to make (that doing the fortress is being an unsport, what the hell). How out of touch can you be to even tell a guy who ended quite well what list he should bring just because he has to play for a draw and grab some points later on?

By the way, if you have a list to handle swarm/phantom/fat han, which isn't one of those, please, share with us.

Any ship can hypothetically green and K over and over or fly in circles but it can leave them in a pretty suboptimal position when the fighting actually starts.

As does a fortress.

The Fortress sets up in such a way that if the other player wants to attack they're forced to approach it and then, due to the edge of the board, turn and fly away, exposing its behind to continued fire from the fortress.

Or just bump into the fortress while approaching along the board edge and have your whole squad hammering away at the fortress while only half of his ships have you in arc, forcing him to break the fortress and then you end up behind him.

It's a weird observation for Ricky to make, because there's very little conversation going on at TC at all. It's a matter of respective board populations, combined with the fact that it is already being discussed here. (Sort of.)

It'll get plenty of discussion at TC.

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.

I don't get it.

Because this is not a discussion thread, it turned out thanks to bipolar in a kneejerk reaction to someone who played to win, because they feel that's wrong. To be honest, i praise his patience, because that's a very bad match up for his list.

Seriously, just read what the discussion is about last page, the guy is saying that he shouldn't had brought that list as some sort of argument for the point he is trying to make (that doing the fortress is being an unsport, what the hell). How out of touch can you be to even tell a guy who ended quite well what list he should bring just because he has to play for a draw and grab some points later on?

By the way, if you have a list to handle swarm/phantom/fat han, which isn't one of those, please, share with us.

Try rereading the last page where i suggest some very minor tweaks that would have given him a much better chance to fight a phantom list rather than relying on a "Hail Mary". If you're going to skim or flat out ignore parts of my posts just put me on ignore so you don't have to see my "kneejerk reactions".

We'll be covering it in the podcast. I'll give you a preview of my thoughts. Boring but effective. That's it. No new rules needed.

Heck the difficulty of killing a Han in 75 min is a bigger issue.

Heck the difficulty of killing a Han in 75 min is a bigger issue.

Yup. This.

Anyone notice the lack of conversation about this on teamcovenant.com?

Make your own conclusions from there.

@Bipolar

So you didn't tell him to change his list while telling him to change the list. Gotcha, i guess i am really bad at reading.

He played the list he wanted to play, and he used the tools he had the best he could legally.

If you feel bumping your own ships is a bad mechanich, make a serious thread about it, explain why and how you would fix it, and how you would address stuff like Lambdas or auto bumping swarms.

The "legality" of things like this is why other Miniature games that shan't be named have such poor reputations.
Its especially galling to me when the Rebel player was sporting a "Fly Casual" shirt and then most definitely did not fly that way.

Instead, you had been doing crap like this, getting the discussion on a personal level, now on list decission making, when it is completely unneeded,counter productive and insulting to people who actually prefer the auto bump mechanichs.

What?

"So you didn't tell him to change his list while telling him to change the list. Gotcha, i guess i am really bad at reading."

What do you even mean by that? Where did i claim i didn't say to make changes to his list? He brought a list that he(and others on this forum) felt had little to no chance of beating a Phantom led list. I posit that that was a bad mistake and suggest some changes to better equip him to face Phantoms and that's a personal attack? Now I admit that i've made some personal remarks, mainly since i've met and played him and didn't expect this behavior from him. But I have not sat here and shouted that hes bad and should feel bad and he should be crucified.

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.

Agreed. Unfortunately the internet allows a certain anonymity, which in turn allows people to act in ways they wouldn't normally in real life.

(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.

As does a fortress.

A fortress by design sets up so that it can shoot you without having to move. Eventually you have to turn around and they get a load of free shots while you get the distance for another approach.

Or just bump into the fortress while approaching along the board edge and have your whole squad hammering away at the fortress while only half of his ships have you in arc, forcing him to break the fortress and then you end up behind him.

Whether or not there are archoles depends on the fortress design. Plus if you fortress onto his fortress then you lose your actions too, removing the fortress's major disadvantage.

Boring but effective. That's it. No new rules needed.

Not sure "but" is the right word. "And" might fit better. Plus the whole reason FFG hasn't killed fortresses is because it isn't effective. If it is now, hopefully they'll ram a nail in it's coffin. Alex Davy said at GenCon the reason it hasn't been dealt with is because it's "not a very good strategy". If is it now, I'm pretty FFG don't want what they described as a "negative play experience" to proliferate throughout the metagame. The best word I can use to describe it is inflammatory, and for a company trying to sell this game that's not something they want.

Personally I think FFG should kill it off before it catches on and we have a season where X-wing simply isn't fun. Yes, it's a tactic that can be dealt with, but I don't think it belongs in this game.

insulting to people who actually prefer the auto bump mechanichs.

Prefer to what?

Or just bump into the fortress while approaching along the board edge and have your whole squad hammering away at the fortress while only half of his ships have you in arc, forcing him to break the fortress and then you end up behind him.

Whether or not there are archoles depends on the fortress design. Plus if you fortress onto his fortress then you lose your actions too, removing the fortress's major disadvantage.

Without turrets it is impossible to set one up that doesn't leave approaches that only 1-2 ships can cover. Yes, once you are bumping into his fortress you loose your actions too, but by that point you have most, if not all, of your squad shooting at his fortress while only one of his ships (because you probably killed one on the way in) can shoot back, all without actions. Once that ship dies the fortress is broken, his ships HAVE to fly out and you end up behind him.

Still not convinced that green K loops, back to back white Ks from a Defender or flying in circles with a hard 1 is equally effective.

Heck the difficulty of killing a Han in 75 min is a bigger issue.

Totally true

Bipolar please answer this, if you were the imperial what would you have done in the exact same situation?

It was a tactically viable option that increased his odds of winning at the highest level of the game. How he did or did not carry on from there could be an issue but I wasn't there so I won't say more about that.

If fortressing needs fixed, andthat's an IF, te fix would need to allow for self bumping in all the ways that it does enrich the game. I like the idea of starting off board and having to complete a maneuver without overlapping to enter. I fear this might lead to slower game play and that if you were really into fortressing you'd just figure out how to make it happen turn 2 instead of turn 1.

What I would like to see is a judge rule that it is not progressing the game state to the goal of eliminating one or more enemy ships. If a ship isn't attacking, TLing, taking actions that could damage an enemy or end movement significantly closer to an enemy for multiple turns (say 3-4), then that player is stalling and the offending ship is destroyed. Could probably be worded strongly enough to deter opposite side board running as well.

This would allow you to turtle for a few rounds for positional advantage and gaining knowledge but would stop it from ruining he so called "game play experience".

I personally would have called the judge over and explained loudly and on camera near the gathered FFG personel that since I had initiative that I would win, ask the judge how long my opponent could stall since he could not win in this matter and ask for a ruling. If the judge said until the end of the game I would ask him/her how long I had before I would be called on slow play and set a timer, make a single move, set a timer, single action, set a timer...waited them out that way. Ask my opponent between every beep if they were ready to play yet.

The truely horrific part would have been if the rebel player had initiative and no motivation to break period. Now you are forced to engage on their terms. I expect we'll see this come up more and more

Often till a change occurs.

I don't like that this has become "the big deal" out of this years worlds but I'm also kinda glad we HAVE to have the discussion at least.

Bipolar please answer this, if you were the imperial what would you have done in the exact same situation?

Would have glared at my opponent, asked him "Really?" and then K-turned on the opposite edge until time ran out and i won by default. Would have informed my opponent of my intentions as well. Afterward i would have sarcastically thanked him for a terrible match and walked away. I make no claims to be a better person, I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy.

If at any point he broke formation before the warning timer and moved to play the game as intended (subjective, i know as people will be sure to point out) I would move to face him and engage, even if i was at a disadvantaged position. And please do not tell me that he broke formation in time for a proper dogfight, he waited til time was called then hurriedly rushed out and bet everything on a single round of dice.

Bipolar please answer this, if you were the imperial what would you have done in the exact same situation?

Would have glared at my opponent, asked him "Really?" and then K-turned on the opposite edge until time ran out and i won by default. Would have informed my opponent of my intentions as well. Afterward i would have sarcastically thanked him for a terrible match and walked away. I make no claims to be a better person, I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy.

If at any point he broke formation before the warning timer and moved to play the game as intended (subjective, i know as people will be sure to point out) I would move to face him and engage, even if i was at a disadvantaged position. And please do not tell me that he broke formation in time for a proper dogfight, he waited til time was called then hurriedly rushed out and bet everything on a single round of dice.

Do you think a better idea would have been to take a little extra time to set the dials and run/evade the ties for that last round?

I left that morning so didn't stick around to see the match but I assume the ties flew to attack the formation or flew close enough to where he could catch them in 1 to 2 turns. I think with a different strategy he could have been at least 3 turns safe maybe 4.

Edit* Also it has nothing to do with being a better person or anything like that. I'm sure we all have players we play against that we don't like. If someone employs a strategy that makes you think that he's a ****** bag then definitely employ a counter ****** strategy. Doesn't make you a bad person it makes you the better player according to the objectives.

Stress builds, built for PS bid, hell he had Wedge and PS 10 Cracken. He could have taken another Z instead of that rookie and put R3-A2 on Biggs to stress a Phantom and then put an EU on Wedge to give him a better chance at getting an arc on a Phantom. That leaves him at 97 points, and a pretty unbeatable PS bid.

That means Cracken and Wedge shooting at a Phantom with 1-2 Agility dice, and with the stress and blocking you can eliminate most of a phantoms moves.

OK but that's a personal choice and as I've said when I post my builds for discussion its season to taste. I get you're diemtrically opposed to this and that's great passion but Rich chose his path and really that's a piloting choice wherein no foul occured and after 20+ pages of circulular point counter point let's agree to disagree.

Heck the difficulty of killing a Han in 75 min is a bigger issue.

Yup. This.

As I stated earlier, I've seen that CS Teflon coated Solo turn tail and run away when up in points.

(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.

Bipolar please answer this, if you were the imperial what would you have done in the exact same situation?

Would have glared at my opponent, asked him "Really?" and then K-turned on the opposite edge until time ran out and i won by default. Would have informed my opponent of my intentions as well. Afterward i would have sarcastically thanked him for a terrible match and walked away. I make no claims to be a better person, I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy.

If at any point he broke formation before the warning timer and moved to play the game as intended (subjective, i know as people will be sure to point out) I would move to face him and engage, even if i was at a disadvantaged position. And please do not tell me that he broke formation in time for a proper dogfight, he waited til time was called then hurriedly rushed out and bet everything on a single round of dice.

Well sitting there k-turning our 1 turning definitely would have been the thing to do so I'm glad to hear that you would have dished it back to him.

Do you think a better idea would have been to take a little extra time to set the dials and run/evade the ties for that last round?

I left that morning so didn't stick around to see the match but I assume the ties flew to attack the formation or flew close enough to where he could catch them in 1 to 2 turns. I think with a different strategy he could have been at least 3 turns safe maybe 4.

Edit* Also it has nothing to do with being a better person or anything like that. I'm sure we all have players we play against that we don't like. If someone employs a strategy that makes you think that he's a ****** bag then definitely employ a counter ****** strategy. Doesn't make you a bad person it makes you the better player according to the objectives.

From the pictures i've seen and what I've heard from 1st through 3rd hand accounts was that at the 5 minute warning Rebel player broke out of his corner headed for Imperial player's forces. Imperial player knew this was probably going to happen so was already k-turning to face. Next turn Imperial player made adjustments to flight path to face Rebels head on while Rebel player moved into R3. Firing commences, Imperial player whiffs 7 straight dice, loses ship, kills none in return. GG. I would have simply flown straight instead of K-turning then continued down the side of the board. Rebel player would have had 2 ships maybe 3 in firing position.

Stress builds, built for PS bid, hell he had Wedge and PS 10 Cracken. He could have taken another Z instead of that rookie and put R3-A2 on Biggs to stress a Phantom and then put an EU on Wedge to give him a better chance at getting an arc on a Phantom. That leaves him at 97 points, and a pretty unbeatable PS bid.

That means Cracken and Wedge shooting at a Phantom with 1-2 Agility dice, and with the stress and blocking you can eliminate most of a phantoms moves.

Now you're taking a leap to build construction to cover stratagem choices within the specific build.

OK but that's a personal choice and as I've said when I post my builds for discussion its season to taste. I get you're diemtrically opposed to this and that's great passion but Rich chose his path and really that's a piloting choice wherein no foul occured and after 20+ pages of circulular point counter point let's agree to disagree.

I moved to list choices based on the argument that the Fortress was the only viable solution he had against a Phantom. The suggestions I made subtracted 1 red dice and 1 shield from his forces, subtracted nothing else from his main plan of hunting Fat Falcons, yet gave him a much better chance at fighting Phantoms (stress bot and giving wedge boost).

What I would like to see is a judge rule that it is not progressing the game state to the goal of eliminating one or more enemy ships. If a ship isn't attacking, TLing, taking actions that could damage an enemy or end movement significantly closer to an enemy for multiple turns (say 3-4), then that player is stalling and the offending ship is destroyed. Could probably be worded strongly enough to deter opposite side board running as well.

This would allow you to turtle for a few rounds for positional advantage and gaining knowledge but would stop it from ruining he so called "game play experience".

The problem with this is what about "bugging out" to win? (Although trying to stay out of weapons range for 4 turns might be a little hard.) Forcing someone to engage at some arbitrary point is meaningless. If I'm ahead in points, match time is almost expired, and my ship is heavily damaged, there is no reason I need to continue to engage. If that's what they wanted they should make all matches play until one player is totally destroyed. 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.

Overall the game should be about engaging and dogfighting, but there are times when it's not and those times are just as important as the battle itself.