Why do you assume that blocking has an intended purpose? The rules don't say "this is a bad thing, try to do it to your opponent and never allow it happen to your own ships", they just tell you what happens when you overlap another ship. The only "intent" here is coming from your own assumptions.

GenCon interview. They didn't pre-empt it. They've since embraced blocking but they didn't see it coming when designing the game: the rule was meant to discourage hitting other ships.

On the subject of blocking and Lambdas, I seem to recall Dom doing a lot of self-blocking with his shuttles to create kill zones. One shuttle greens into another, which greens into another, which greens into the guy he was already bumped with. It allows him to split the targets' fire while creating masses of areas that they just couldn't fly through. It was essential to his win.

For all that matters, it is the same case, using the overlapping rule on himself to gain an advantage.

Should I feel different because he is using poor, "weak" Lambdas? Or because it used it only for 1 or 2 turns? That automatically makes it a brilliant strategy instead of an questionable tactic?

The bottom fact doesn't change. The rule is being used for unintended purposes. Creating "kill zones"... gaining zero movement for consecutive turns etc... The Lambda already has the zero movement option built in. It costs its action and gives a stress token on top, so it's even more severe than the bare overlapping rule. The player just used fortressing to circumvent those penalties. Period.

The shuttle was designed to stall once. A player who knows how to fly them well will use other tricks to keep them in place for several turns. That's part of how to actually excel with them.

GenCon interview. They didn't pre-empt it. They've since embraced blocking but they didn't see it coming when designing the game: the rule was meant to discourage hitting other ships.

Yep, in the same interview they talk about self blocking - say that they're aware of it, that it seems weird, awkward and potentially annoying for opposing players and that they're not losing any sleep over it but if it becomes a problem they could step in.

There has been a lot of "this is not how the game is meant to be played" being bandied about in this thread, but you can't know that. At best, the game designers did not think about perpetual self blocking.

In reality it is "This is not how I want the game to be played". That sentiment is fine, but it's bloody disingenuous to tell go around saying that it is "an obvious exploit", "basically cheating" and any other self righteousness because you specifically don't like it.

It is currently legal. It has been known for a long time. There had been no change because *even if* the game designers didn't intend it they never felt strongly enough to remove it, and that's an important point no one seems to acknowledge. Years to say "no this is broken" but nothing has been done about it. It's a bad tactic in general. It's no different from flying in circles. No, it really isn't.

The only reason we are talking about this is because the game was at World's and it was boring.

Let's be careful not to confuse self-blocking and fortressing

Self-blocking is pretty broad is flying your ships into each other to effectively expand your maneuver dial (at the cost of your action). Fortressing is when you self-block every turn so that your ships don't move at all. The first I'm cool with, the second I think is detrimental to the game.

And that means this is absolutely the time to talk about it. If it made it 3 games away from the final matchup in worlds, it could have made it just a little bit closer. I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer my question on if you'd be holding the same stance if this tactic had made an appearance in the final matchup.

I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer my question on if you'd be holding the same stance if this tactic had made an appearance in the final matchup.

Considering how badly Paul or Morgan would of eaten him alive if he had tried, I wouldn't of bothered me in the least.

A legal tactic is legal regardless of what stage of the tournament you're in. FFG's stance is clearly that they don't care about the tactic because it hasn't really proven to be anything that's actually effective.

The only reason the fortress worked in this case was because the Imperial player let him sit there for that long then massively bad luck.

There has been a lot of "this is not how the game is meant to be played" being bandied about in this thread, but you can't know that. At best, the game designers did not think about perpetual self blocking.

In reality it is "This is not how I want the game to be played". That sentiment is fine, but it's bloody disingenuous to tell go around saying that it is "an obvious exploit", "basically cheating" and any other self righteousness because you specifically don't like it.

It is currently legal. It has been known for a long time. There had been no change because *even if* the game designers didn't intend it they never felt strongly enough to remove it, and that's an important point no one seems to acknowledge. Years to say "no this is broken" but nothing has been done about it. It's a bad tactic in general. It's no different from flying in circles. No, it really isn't.

The only reason we are talking about this is because the game was at World's and it was boring.

I struggle to believe you'd think the game designers intended fortressing to be a thing in a game about dogfighting starfighters. To suggest that is a significant vote of no confidence in their abilities in thematic game design. However, as a matter of fact we do know what the designers thought and think because they told us in the GenCon interview that is all over this forum and yet so many people in this thread seem not to have seen.

We know that when Jay Little designed the Core game intentional blocking, either of enemies or your own ships, wasn't noticed as a tactic. As for Fortressing, we know what the current lead designers (Alex Davy and Frank Brooks) think of it because they said so explicitly: it's "perfectly legal", it's a "negative play experience for the opponent" and it's "not a very good strategy." They weren't worried about it and because it was so ineffective and uncommon they saw no need to do anything about it, but said if it became a problem they could potentially look into dealing with it.

Now it's turned up at Worlds and has become very high profile there's a risk of it perpetuating. If it does, I wouldn't be surprised if FFG changes the rules to make either fortressing, non-engagement or both much less appealing or makes fortressing explicitly illegal.

It's no different from flying in circles. No, it really isn't.

If you think that you don't understand fortressing. I'll pose the same question I posed to Sithborg: would the Worlds game have turned out the same way if the X-wings and Z-95s had flown in circles?

Now it's turned up at Worlds and has become very high profile there's a risk of it perpetuating.

But the issue here isn't just fortressing, it's that the other guy let him do that for that long, then managed to kill a tie fighter against the odds.

If the phantom list so massively outclassed the rebel list as some seem to think then why didn't the Imperial player exchange a Tie for a Z-95, coming out either even or ahead on points then mop up the rebels with his superior list? The fortress would of fallen apart and it would be 3 Rebel ships vs the rest of the phantom swarm.

All in all it was very lucky for the rebel player to pull out a win in that game.

If they were to deal with it, I'd think it'd show up as a card. Maybe a magnetic pulse that causes all ships in base contact the target or in base contact with a ship in contact with the target to suffer one damage?

Now it's turned up at Worlds and has become very high profile there's a risk of it perpetuating.

But the issue here isn't just fortressing, it's that the other guy let him do that for that long, then managed to kill a tie fighter against the odds.If the phantom list so massively outclassed the rebel list as some seem to think then why didn't the Imperial player exchange a Tie for a Z-95, coming out either even or ahead on points then mop up the rebels with his superior list? The fortress would of fallen apart and it would be 3 Rebel ships vs the rest of the phantom swarm.All in all it was very lucky for the rebel player to pull out a win in that game.

Well, he would have had to kill Biggs first. And Wedge had Draw Their Fire, which helps Biggs survive longer by taking crits off the attack table. There was actually some good synergies in that build.

Yup, and Biggs was positioned in a manner that this death wouldn't break up the fortress. And Cracken had VI, meaning he could pass an action to Wedge or Biggs for when the Imperials rushed in. And with the Rebels being positioned in the corner, facing into the board, if the Imperials would most likely have to break off their attack after their first round of shooting (second at best), turning away from the Rebels and letting the Rebels follow them back into the center of the board.

All this is covered on page one of the thread. Of course, if you want to know the exact why the Imperials didn't wade in and engage the waiting Rebel fortress, you'd be better off asking the Imperial player themselves.

Well, he would have had to kill Biggs first. And Wedge had Draw Their Fire, which helps Biggs survive longer by taking crits off the attack table. There was actually some good synergies in that build.

Yup, and Biggs was positioned in a manner that this death wouldn't break up the fortress. And Cracken had VI, meaning he could pass an action to Wedge or Biggs for when the Imperials rushed in. And with the Rebels being positioned in the corner, facing into the board, if the Imperials would most likely have to break off their attack after their first round of shooting (second at best), turning away from the Rebels and letting the Rebels follow them back into the center of the board.

All this is covered on page one of the thread. Of course, if you want to know the exact why the Imperials didn't wade in and engage the waiting Rebel fortress, you'd be better off asking the Imperial player themselves.

As for Fortressing, we know what the current lead designers (Alex Davy and Frank Brooks) think of it because they said so explicitly: it's "perfectly legal", it's a "negative play experience for the opponent" and it's "not a very good strategy." They weren't worried about it and because it was so ineffective and uncommon they saw no need to do anything about it, but said if it became a problem they could potentially look into dealing with it.

So what you're saying is, it's known and accepted by the current lead designers, boring to play against, and just all round not very good. I completely agree and also why I think absolutely nothing needs to be done about it.

If you think that you don't understand fortressing. I'll pose the same question I posed to Sithborg: would the Worlds game have turned out the same way if the X-wings and Z-95s had flown in circles?

I understand it fine. I also understand that the opponent didn't engage until very late in the game. So yes, if neither player wants to engage until the last 5 minutes, it doesn't matter what they do till then, it'll always turn out like that.

Edit---

And that means this is absolutely the time to talk about it. If it made it 3 games away from the final matchup in worlds, it could have made it just a little bit closer. I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer my question on if you'd be holding the same stance if this tactic had made an appearance in the final matchup.

Wouldn't have a problem with it because it would most likely get trounced, and if it won, players would come up with new and interesting strategies to defeat it.

So what you're saying is, it's known and accepted by the current lead designers, boring to play against, and just all round not very good. I completely agree and also why I think absolutely nothing needs to be done about it.

Back then nobody really did it.

Let me turn this one around: would you care if they did take steps to prevent it?

I understand it fine. I also understand that the opponent didn't engage until very late in the game. So yes, if neither player wants to engage until the last 5 minutes, it doesn't matter what they do till then, it'll always turn out like that.

Fortressing isn't a non-engagement strategy.

It's locking your ships in one place, using the edge of the board to protect their back and concentrate all their arcs forward. A ship approaching them normally still has to move. It's subject to fire (often focused fire) on the approach and then when it gets really close has to turn around and fly away. The Fortress is bypassing the maneuver dial mechanic and thus doesn't have to, and gets a bunch of free shots whilst the opponent's ships get set up for another pass.

If the opponent doesn't fortress and flies in circles waiting for the opponent then the engagement plays out normally.

If the Z-95s and X-wings flew in circles the opponent could have approached and engaged normally. The TIE phantom had the advantage in terms of list matchup. The reason it stayed back is because the rebel player fortressed and attacking a fortress head-on isn't what you'd call desirable.

Let me turn this one around: would you care if they did take steps to prevent it?

I would not object to the change as long as

a)It's been shown that it's necessary. I remain unconvinced so far.

b)The change doesn't negatively impact the rest of the game. This is the thing I actually fear, that some kneejerk change will occur and the game will lose a lot of depth.

Fortressing isn't a non-engagement strategy.

It's locking your ships in one place, using the edge of the board to protect their back and concentrate all their arcs forward. A ship approaching them normally still has to move. It's subject to fire (often focused fire) on the approach and then when it gets really close has to turn around and fly away. The Fortress is bypassing the maneuver dial mechanic and thus doesn't have to, and gets a bunch of free shots whilst the opponent's ships get set up for another pass.

If the opponent doesn't fortress and flies in circles waiting for the opponent then the engagement plays out normally.

If the Z-95s and X-wings flew in circles the opponent could have approached and engaged normally. The TIE phantom had the advantage in terms of list matchup. The reason it stayed back is because the rebel player fortressed and attacking a fortress head-on isn't what you'd call desirable.

I saw 2 lines of approach on the pic on the front page that return fire would only come from 1 ship. The fortress wasn't moving, I see no reason why the Imperial player couldn't exploit these.

b)The change doesn't negatively impact the rest of the game. This is the thing I actually fear, that some kneejerk change will occur and the game will lose a lot of depth.

I wouldn't call fortresses depth. Beyond that I remain unconvinced as to the assertion that rules to disincentivise or ban fortressing would cause wider damage. They might even increase depth for all we know.

I saw 2 lines of approach on the pic on the front page that return fire would only come from 1 ship. The fortress wasn't moving, I see no reason why the Imperial player couldn't exploit these.

I'm not suggesting the fortress is infallible, I'm stating it isn't equivalent to flying in circles.

Frankly, this is the first time I have ever seen or heard of a fortress winning a game and even in this instance Richard didn't win with the fort he won by engaging successfully and destroying a TIE fighter. I have also never met a player at any of the top tables who had the slightest concern about it. It just isn't a good enough tactic to be a problem, and the only reason it became one here is because one guys attempt to face it didn't pan out and a whole bunch of people immediately over-reacted. By those standards, we should be trying to ban Jan Ors because she defeated my two Phantoms, never mind that any sort of sane analysis says she is hardly the monster shark killer of X-Wing.

I totally think HWKs and Blaster Turrets should be banned. ;-) I watched your match against Typo and it pained me to see another Phantom player get killed by the HWK (which happened to me twice in the weeks leading to Worlds in my practice games). OP man, OP!

I'd like to point out that Fortressing does not bypass the maneuver phase of the game. Quite the opposite, maneuver is key to executing a fortress.

Also, self blocking is the same strategy in principle as Fortressing. A player makes a sacrifice to saturate an area of the board with fire. In the case of Fortressing, what changes is the utilization of the board to gain defense through limiting the opposing players maneuver options, a viable strategy. Viable in that it can work. Not that it always will.

And finally, the question about wanting to see Fortressing in the final game of Worlds is meaningless. We as spectators are fortunate to get the chance to observe any tournament game. But, those games are played for the competitors who made it to the last table, not for us. Make no mistake, there is no gladiatorial obligation on the part of the players to give us a 'good show.'

And if fortressing is viable it should be removed. The entire argument for leaving it untouched is because it is not viable.

I'd like to point out that Fortressing does not bypass the maneuver phase of the game. Quite the opposite, maneuver is key to executing a fortress.

It doesn't literally skip it. Once you've formed a fortress you set the same maneuver over and over and your ships don't move. They're effectively doing constant 0 maneuvers and skipping their actions.

My opposition to fortressing is based on it being a negative experience for the opponent, it cutting out a large chunk of interplayer interaction and how thematically jarring it is: it is not a good thing for the game and is quite clearly an unintended derp of the flightpath mechanics, and not one with beneficial consequences.

And finally, the question about wanting to see Fortressing in the final game of Worlds is meaningless. We as spectators are fortunate to get the chance to observe any tournament game. But, those games are played for the competitors who made it to the last table, not for us. Make no mistake, there is no gladiatorial obligation on the part of the players to give us a 'good show.'

Pretty sure nobody asked that question. The references to Worlds are bringing up that the tactic appeared at a high level of play.

And that means this is absolutely the time to talk about it. If it made it 3 games away from the final matchup in worlds, it could have made it just a little bit closer. I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer my question on if you'd be holding the same stance if this tactic had made an appearance in the final matchup.

Saying that fortressing made it 3 games away from the final round would seem to imply that this was a tactic that was frequently employed by the player, which it wasn't. It was a tactic used in a single match which ended up being decided by a couple of dice rolls, not by the fortress tactic. The result would have been the same if both players had decided to sit on their own sides of the board just swimming laps until the round was almost over and then rush to see who could take a few points off of the board.

If the consistent use of fortressing as a tactic had actually gotten a player into the top 16 there might be some cause for concern. Until it becomes much more prevalent and works its way into the meta FFG should just leave things alone.

"I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer my question on if you'd be holding the same stance if this tactic had made an appearance in the final matchup." -BipolarPlotter

I'd also point out that losing is a negative gameplay experience, so that doesn't really fly as a reason to react to a tactic which has negligible impact on the strategic meta. I'll wager you won't see a sudden explosion of lists whose synergies are based on Fortressing, because, while viable, it does not offer many applicable advantages.

And if fortressing is viable it should be removed. The entire argument for leaving it untouched is because it is not viable.

I'd like to point out that Fortressing does not bypass the maneuver phase of the game. Quite the opposite, maneuver is key to executing a fortress.

It doesn't literally skip it. Once you've formed a fortress you set the same maneuver over and over and your ships don't move. They're effectively doing constant 0 maneuvers and skipping their actions.

My opposition to fortressing is based on it being a negative experience for the opponent, it cutting out a large chunk of interplayer interaction and how thematically jarring it is: it is not a good thing for the game and is quite clearly an unintended derp of the flightpath mechanics, and not one with beneficial consequences.

And finally, the question about wanting to see Fortressing in the final game of Worlds is meaningless. We as spectators are fortunate to get the chance to observe any tournament game. But, those games are played for the competitors who made it to the last table, not for us. Make no mistake, there is no gladiatorial obligation on the part of the players to give us a 'good show.'

Pretty sure nobody asked that question. The references to Worlds are bringing up that the tactic appeared at a high level of play.

Bipolar Potter asked it just a little higher up on this page.

And that means this is absolutely the time to talk about it. If it made it 3 games away from the final matchup in worlds, it could have made it just a little bit closer. I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer my question on if you'd be holding the same stance if this tactic had made an appearance in the final matchup.

I will say this about if such stalling tactics had made it into the final game. If we were 80+ minutes and nobody had made a shot, then FFG wouldn't hesitate to threaten to DQ both players. THAT is stalling. FFG didn't hesitate to DQ 3/4 of the top table in the AGOT Melee tournaments last year. Of course, you wouldn't see such a strategy, because again, no time limit means stalling for time is pointless.

Again, time limits (or the lack there of) and single elimination vs swiss do have large effects on what strategies you use and how you play. It's why TIE Swarms have had difficulties in competitive play before the change in full wins, because if swarms were popular, facing another swarm would cause issues.

Personally, the time limits should be increased once you get to single elimination. Doesn't change certain time issues in swiss (looking at defensive Falcons), but that can't be helped.