"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.

Losing in any game is a preaccepted possible outcome when you agree to play the game in the first place. Showing up to a match and having your opponent turn it into a single player game is not something someone expects normally. Saying well i lost so i had a bad time and comparing that to this situation is a poor argument and you know it.

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...

Unless of course they're fielding ships with some kind of action-generating mechanic, like the example on Page 1 did with Cracken. Or like Advance Sensors. Oh, hi there unmoving 3 x AS Blue Squadron with Biggs fortress!

It should be noted as well that although the fortressing ships don't actually complete their maneuvers, if the player is choosing a 1 forward every turn, their movement is likely to end up effectively being a green "0" manuever too.

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.

Assuming all else is equal, then yes removing a current tactic removes depth. There is now one thing less that you could previously do. An option had been removed. This is a loss of depth. May not be huge, but is still a loss.

Might not have a negative effect is not a strong enough justification to change something that isn't actually a problem to begin with. The onus is in you to show there is a problem, and because one person used a tactic you personally don't like does not constitute a problem.

Losing in any game is a preaccepted possible outcome when you agree to play the game in the first place. Showing up to a match and having your opponent turn it into a single player game is not something someone expects normally. Saying well i lost so i had a bad time and comparing that to this situation is a poor argument and you know it.

It's just as comparable as "My opponent flew a Phantom and I don't like those so I had a bad time". It can be true, entirely justified, and totally appropriate. It's just not a very good reason to demand rule changes.

The game is better for self blocking being in it. A by product of self blocking is the fortress. The fortress is not damaging to the meta, it's not even a very good tactic to use. There are really only a couple of situations that it is *not terrible*. It's not a dominant tactic. So until someone can show me why it's bad, and you need do better than "I think it's bad", it should not be changed.

Unless of course they're fielding ships with some kind of action-generating mechanic, like the example on Page 1 did with Cracken. Or like Advance Sensors. Oh, hi there unmoving 3 x AS Blue Squadron with Biggs fortress!

The fact that these lists have been possible for a long time and still haven't found any real place in the metagame suggests very strongly that they just aren't very good strategies. Deliberately bumping with AS b-wings is nothing new (I've been doing it for as long as there have been AS b-wings in the game) and so far it's just a situational thing that you do to improvise an occasional stop maneuver or block a bad k-turn or whatever. If nobody has found an overpowered (or even tournament-viable) b-wing fortress list by now then I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

And really, this shouldn't be too surprising if you think about it. You've essentially created a jousting match where your just line up and exchange shots, except you have blind spots that few or none of your ships can shoot into and you will never dodge any of your opponent's arcs. The entire value of a fortress strategy is that it's something your opponent might not expect, and they might make a mistake in trying to improvise a strategy to counter it within the limits of a timed tournament game. If the strategy ever becomes common enought that people start to prepare for it the whole thing just falls apart like every other fortress list that has been proposed.

The fact that these lists have been possible for a long time and still haven't found any real place in the metagame suggests very strongly that they just aren't very good strategies.

...or it suggests very strongly that the vast majority of players aren't win at all costs cheesemongers and actually prefer flying their ships around the board to shamelessly exploiting the rules of the game by sitting in a corner of the board not moving for an hour+ and waiting for their opponent to flinch.

Clausewitz observed that defence is the stronger form of combat. Any tabletop game that is "realistic" enough to take that into account, has a problem with stalling, because like in real war, nobody moves if he does not have to. A problem usually fixed by objectives, which has the disadvantage of being burdensome. X-Wing avoids this problem cleverly by confining spacecraft who can't stop to a relatively small area thus forcing engagement. The edge of the world is a problem as with any tabletop, especially with the confined space, but it works. I have not seen much stalling. Will we see more stalling now that this example at Worlds got so much attention? I doubt it. Autoblocking is penalized with the loss of action. This disadvantage should be enough to loose the shooting match thus discouraging the fortress. You could think about penalizing it more, e. g. by adding a stress for the blocked craft or setting its pilot skill to 0 for the next round, but I think that would be overdoing it as blocking your opponent would get too strong.

Anybody doing a fortress against me will get a smile and enough focus fire to point out the errors of his way...

The fact that these lists have been possible for a long time and still haven't found any real place in the metagame suggests very strongly that they just aren't very good strategies.

...or it suggests very strongly that the vast majority of players aren't win at all costs cheesemongers and actually prefer flying their ships around the board to shamelessly exploiting the rules of the game by sitting in a corner of the board not moving for an hour+ and waiting for their opponent to flinch.

As much as I know people around here like to believe in "honour" and other such things, but... no. Not a chance. You play competitively, and you start doing what works, regardless of how people think about it. That's why Falcons are everywhere right now. If Fortressing worked, we would have seen much more of it by now.

As much as I know people around here like to believe in "honour" and other such things, but... no. Not a chance. You play competitively, and you start doing what works, regardless of how people think about it. That's why Falcons are everywhere right now. If Fortressing worked, we would have seen much more of it by now.

Ah yes. "honour", "fun", "enjoyment"... "self-respect"... we have dismissed those claims.

To all of those suggesting that the Imperial player should have engaged...should he have? If the Rebel player had initiative, sure. But since the Imperials had initiative, they had no reason to engage. Basically, the Imperial player had two choices:

1) Not engage, and let the Rebel player gamble the entire match on a single round of firing, or

2) Engage, and get in one, maybe two rounds of firing before having to break off and allow another round of unanswered shots from the fortress, and also maybe

2a) Risk flying his own ships off the board to try to squeeze into single-file inside a 2-inch lane on the edge, just so that only Wedge (just Wedge!) gets a shot at them. Until that breaking off and getting shot in the back part.

So no, I don't fault the Imperial player for taking the safer strategy, especially in a high-level game. I don't fault the Rebel player for doing the same, mind you. And that's the issue: two players played with what they saw as their best strategy, and that led to an incredibly boring 70 minutes. Isn't that a problem worth addressing in a game, even a competitive one?

I don't see the problem with fortressing. You're deliberately denying yourself actions, and your opponent can fly up and down the board until 5 mins to time, where he engages, blows up a cheap ship with an alpha strike, and wins on points.

I'd also point out that losing is a negative gameplay experience

In of itself? Only if you've got a really bad attitude.

I don't see the problem with fortressing. You're deliberately denying yourself actions, and your opponent can fly up and down the board until 5 mins to time, where he engages, blows up a cheap ship with an alpha strike, and wins on points.

That sounds like a blast of a game to play!

Even if 1 out of 4 games I had to face someone who fortressed, I would quit X-wing.

Okay so i have been collecting for a while but dont really get to play alot how is that possible that they would just stay there

Clausewitz observed that defence is the stronger form of combat.

I think that was true in Clausewitz's time, and it certainly was true through WWI. However, I think that that fact is technologically and doctrinally conditional, and thus not a core truth.

But... I agree with the rest of what you said.

Okay so i have been collecting for a while but dont really get to play alot how is that possible that they would just stay there

Long story short, he set up his ships in such a way that they all collided at an angle, where as long as he moved them in order, any ship he moved 1 forward would bump one of his other ships and remain in place.

It's easier to picture with dual Falcons, which is how it was started. Fly them at one another, bump head on, and a 1-straight won't clear your other base. So you just sit there, turn after turn, 1-forwarding into your other ship, and form a little Falcon fortress that can fire two turrets in any direction.

This was the same idea, but in a little hedgehog formation with three X-wings and a Z-95, I believe.

I still can't believe we are talking about this as if the issue of viability should matter. It's terrible and beatable, but we've seen it has some limited viability...enough that people will use it from time to time and that is all that matters, because the point should be "are we going to see this happening" and not "does this win?" when it comes to negative play experiences. From FFG's perspective, this should be a problem even if the fortressing player loses 4 times out of 5. Because it is inherently boring, not fun for many, and a well designed rule could end the possibility of a negative play experience without otherwise impacting the game. (I'm sure FFG could come up with a solution that allowed bumping/blocking but prevented this). They should be done with it because witnessing or experiencing fortressing is more likely to impact game sales and continued play than removing it would.

I've yet to see a single solid point made in favor of fortressing that didn't hinge on "well, if the rule was poor it could impact blocking/bumping in other ways". Is it not possible that fortressing could be prevented without otherwise affecting the game? And if it can, what is the reason not to do so, because frankly I don't see the negatives of fortressing being worth the tiny bit of "depth" some claim it provides.

(And I don't even buy the depth argument. Sure, one choice is provided in deployment that FFG would be eliminating. By implementing the fortress, you then eliminate all depth and choices from one side of play for the remainder of the game and severely limit the opponents options down to 2 or 3)

Clausewitz observed that defence is the stronger form of combat.

I think that was true in Clausewitz's time, and it certainly was true through WWI. However, I think that that fact is technologically and doctrinally conditional, and thus not a core truth.

But... I agree with the rest of what you said.

Clausewitz is always right, I am afraid, even in the age of nukes. Defence is stronger tactically. Not strategically, mind.

Okay so i have been collecting for a while but dont really get to play alot how is that possible that they would just stay there

Picture two Millenium Falcons. One flies into the other head on and has to stop due to the rules on ships colliding. Each turn, both Falcons choose the Forward 1 maneuver. As the Falcon has a large base the 1 Forward doesn't clear the Falcon's base so it crashes. The other Falcon also takes a one maneuver and crashes. The fortressing player keeps doing this, causing both Falcons to not move at all. The player does this in the corner of the board so that the Falcons can only be approached from one direction: a ship that flies past them flies off the board.

When another player attempts to attack the static Falcons, they fly towards them. In normal gameplay all the ships move and thus you can tail enemy ships. The Fortress Falcons don't move because they keep infinitely crashing, but the other player still have to move. They get a few shots but they'll keep getting closer each turn even if they fly as slowly as possible and soon enough they'll have to turn around or they'll will fly off the board. While they're flying away to come around for another pass the fortress gets free shots at them.

In the case of the Falcons, I would just approach on one side staying out of range of the second, at range 3 I would turn away only giving 1 of the Falcons a shot a turn at range 3. Makes for a boring game, but 3-5, ships depending on force, firing at range 3 vs 1 ship probable means you will eventually wear down the one ship. Takes patience, probably means after a couple of turns the Falcons will have to come out. The same tactic would probably work against most stationary targets, it lets you control the range and target, you just have to be committed to a range 3 attack and not get over agressive, be patient. Stationary target is good for me, many guns against few, play the odds.

I guess the complaint I have is that I have always seen this as a basic dog fighting game, never seen a dog fighter sit still. I think bumping in general is not conducive to a good dog fighting game, but I have to live with it and play with it. It is part of the rules, so find a way to take advantage of it I guess.

It is part of the rules, so find a way to take advantage of it I guess.

Or don't use it and actually fly the ships. You'll enjoy the game more and so will your opponent.

It's not part of the rules, it's a thing that's technically legal within the rules. It's not in there by design.

Then one of the new Decimator pilots will take advantage of it not being there by design, because it will actually be able to ram and do damage. I agree with you that it is more fun to manauver and use your ship to its best rather than play bump and run.

I didn't say bumping, ramming other ships to deny actions is a pretty fun gameplay element. I'm referring solely to fortressing.

Not reading through the next 20 pages before commenting.

If this kind of situation occurs where both players are essentially looping back to the same position perhaps the rules should allow for both players to just advance to the endgame. If his game went 60 minutes with nothing changing then the two player should have been able to just move to the end. I mean something like "the game ends after 3 more rounds" or "10 minutes" would quickly cut out all of that wasted time.

I've seen the comments were someone will just forfeit a game against a Fortress strategy because they don't want to 'waste' his time playing against it and this would be a way to get around that. Maybe the round was supposed to be 75 minutes but if most of that time is going to be spent "spinning the wheels" just cut it down to 15 to get it over with one way or another.

Two facts that i want to share about this match.

Fact 1: Richard broke formation at 8 minutes and 59 seconds left in the match. On the last turn of the game after time had been called Richard fired shots from Cracken and Wedge and destroyed a ship.

Fact 2: When Richards destroyed his opponents ship he jumped away from the table into the entry way of the bathroom and let out a roar with a fist pump. Richard was given a warning by the judge who was assigned to keep track of the game. Richard immediately said he was sorry quietly and sat back down.

Other than those two facts, Richard revealed his dials which showed he would not be able to move each turn. Joshua on the other hand moved his ships in a way that would not engage Richard's ships in the corner.