Stall for 59 mins and snipe a Tie, just the way FFG intended...

Ah, but don't forget - it's not actually stalling as the rounds were being played quickly!

It's 59 minutes of performing maneuvers which aren't actually on your (or any) ship's dial (effectively green 0's), then sniping a TIE... just the way FFG intended.

No, auto bumping without any negative consequence is BAD for the game. For examples of why please see Trivialize (re: exploit). There's no reason why the designers could not add a negative effect that additionally penalizes the player for auto bumping. Hearing their comments at GenCon actually made me think that they knew it was an issue, but didn't want to get involved unless it screwed something up at the national level. That's not the kind of thing I want hear as a gamer sinking cash into this hobby.

I want to know if they definitively think auto bumping is cheating/exploiting. Getting a real statement to the pro or con will decide things here instantly. It's really easy to handwave things now, but as the game continues to add ships and new tactics, this issue will inevitably need to be addressed.

I don't like this tactic at all. I think it is bad for the game because it makes the game very boring. Theoretically, if both sides do this, both sides can get a draw easily. I speak from experience because I play chess too and in chess, games can be very boring to watch if the grandmasters decide to just shuffle a few pieces around and go for a known theoretical "grandmaster draw."

Fly casual is an attitude of playing, relax, enjoy, good dice or bad dice, let's play calmly in a non hostile environment. Getting angry at the choice of someone's tactical decision is not flying casual. Calling it bad sportsmanship, I don't think I can agree.

The game is about choosing a list and employing a tactic to beat the opposing list. Sometimes changing that tactic up when the current one isn't working. A big part of the opening is determining the opponents tactic, often times it can be about getting the opponent to play on your terms, asteroid placement, drawing approaches with high value targets.

Sitting in space and waiting is drawing a line in the sand saying, fight on my terms or not at all. The opponent chooses to engage or not. This is not underhanded, it's just an extreme in the game, one that often isn't a very good tactic.

If you fortress, you're losing actions or paying extra points to have them, and the formation is precariously balanced on a single ship, which if destroyed ends the fortress, the opponent knows where you will be and can choose approach and initial engagement range. The tie won't aid your margin of victory very much.

Against the phantom, it seems a clever gamble that worked out in this case due to luck. Fortresses are far from a guaranteed win, and may not be a super exciting game to watch, or play as, I'd not mind playing against one, as it's a new situation to learn how to overcome and challenge.

I think the worse situation would be dual fortresses, which should be a stalemate situation, if no player moves a ship x rounds in a row. I would hope that if the fortress were found to be overpowering and auto victory, something should be done, but as it is, I really don't see this as a problem.

Edit:

It's been pointed out that the players commentary on what he was doing was rather rude and unsportsmanlike. This I would agree with, though it may be unsportsmanlike while using this tactic, it's just as easily unsportsmanlike while using any other tactic. I think that distinction is important.

In my opinion, playing within the game rules is not poor sportsmanship. Period. Otherwise I'd see anyone flying Super Dash as automatic poor sportsmanship, as well as certain asteroid placements.

If he was deliberately slow playing, hounding, or taunting his opponent, I'd consider that poor sportsmanship.

But he turned a near-guaranteed loss into a win without cheating. I'm ok with this.

Want an easy fix? Play with objectives.

It's not effective especially when you have initiative and will auto win. I'd just sit back in the opposite corner and say come at me bro.

That sounds like a really exciting and fun 60 minutes of gaming for everyone concerned.

Point is, this is a game yes, some people play games just to play games and escape the responsibilities of work and family. Some people play these game at TOURNAMENTS to win. This was the highest competitive level of this game so you gotta be ready for tactics like that. Honestly if you don't like it no one forces you to play in tournaments or to play that way and there's nothing wrong with that. I had someone tell me he didn't expect me to run with han at this tournament. I wasn't running but arc dodging his b wings (han is allergic to bees) and taking range 3 pot shots. I don't think he liked it or felt it was in the spirit of the game but it's way smarter than flying into the arc of 3 b wings...

When was either player not playing X wing? Just because one or the other chooses not play it the way you would does not make it unsportsmanlike.

It is unsportsmanlike the very moment your rival is not satisfied with your behavior.

I don't like losing ships. Is killing my ships unsportsmanlike?

It can be acceptably sportsmanlike and still deserve to be changed.

Ships don't have zeroes on the dial for a reason. That was a very intentional part of the design, I suspect.

Is it legal? Yes. Is it sportsmanlike? Meh, opinions will vary. Should FFG do something to fix it? Abso-freaking-lutely.

I'm willing to call the tactic boring, maybe even lame, but labeling it unsportsmanlike really goes too far, IMO. His tactics were entirely within the rules and bumping/blocking has been recognized as a primary strategy from the earliest days of the game - yes, repeated self blocking is a more extreme iteration but still just an extension of the core concept. The moment you look beyond the rules to determine what is and is not within the spirit of the game, and in turn what is and is not sportsmanship, you venture down a slippery and arbitrary slope with unclear and individualized outcomes.

To be clear, I'm all for people advocating for a rules change if they think this is really a problem - just not a fan of labeling Richard's entirely legal conduct as unsporting.

It can be acceptably sportsmanlike and still deserve to be changed.

Ships don't have zeroes on the dial for a reason. That was a very intentional part of the design, I suspect.

Is it legal? Yes. Is it sportsmanlike? Meh, opinions will vary. Should FFG do something to fix it? Abso-freaking-lutely.

It was brought up at GenCon, the reason that the current development team at FFG hasn't done anything about it is that those type of squadrons performed so poorly that it is not even worth trying.

I think we need to clear something up here.

"Within the rules" and "legal" does not make something sportsmanlike. By the simplest definition, if you're not within the rules you're cheating - that is a completely different issue from sportsmanlike behavior.

There are any number of tactics which are legal but considered poor sportsmanship. Running up the score. Faking injuries to stop the clock. Turtling in the corner (soccer, not X-wing). The very definition of sportsmanship covers things that are technically legal to do, but considered bad form.

"It's legal" is an utterly irrelevant point when discussing sportsmanship.

It can be acceptably sportsmanlike and still deserve to be changed.

Players don't deserve hate for playing the game within the rules.

Focus on the game fix, not the player.

I think we need to clear something up here.

"Within the rules" and "legal" does not make something sportsmanlike. By the simplest definition, if you're not within the rules you're cheating - that is a completely different issue from sportsmanlike behavior.

There are any number of tactics which are legal but considered poor sportsmanship. Running up the score. Faking injuries to stop the clock. Turtling in the corner (soccer, not X-wing). The very definition of sportsmanship covers things that are technically legal to do, but considered bad form.

"It's legal" is an utterly irrelevant point when discussing sportsmanship.

There are rules which have been the results to unsportsmanlike conduct. Take the unnecessary roughness rule from the NFL. The question is does the fortress builds break the game and encourage rule lawyering to a point where such rulings are needed. From what I understand is that they are not winning any tournaments, and I have seen worse forms of rule exploitation that was very unsportsmanlike.

Focus on the game fix, not the player.

Many times this.

ive met today a guy in a local store touarnement with 2 lambdas and 1 tie bomber. captian jonus with wingman

1 omricon with HLC and advanced sensors and colonel jendon with HLC, weapon engeneers, advanced sensors, st-321 and so on. it was a nightmare to fight i maybe should have flanked him but nah i flew into his arms and died. he won the touarnement. with out moving 1 inch on the table. sure this game is all about moving and yeah theres the joke if u dont move wheres the moving ?`well iam sad and hope that this gets erata that such actions are not legal or something

I think we need to clear something up here.

"Within the rules" and "legal" does not make something sportsmanlike. By the simplest definition, if you're not within the rules you're cheating - that is a completely different issue from sportsmanlike behavior.

There are any number of tactics which are legal but considered poor sportsmanship. Running up the score. Faking injuries to stop the clock. Turtling in the corner (soccer, not X-wing). The very definition of sportsmanship covers things that are technically legal to do, but considered bad form.

"It's legal" is an utterly irrelevant point when discussing sportsmanship.

The rules form the foundation of sportsmanlike conduct. I'd argue that the vast majority of sportsmanlike criteria are directed by the spirit and nature of the underlying rules. To argue that they're irrelevant shows a lack of understanding as to how sportsmanship conduct is created and defined.

Whether and how far (if at all) sportsmanlike conduct extends beyond the rules is a a purely individual and social construct, rarely universally agreed or accepted. Accordingly, it's not relevant to the topic of this thread - whether repeated self blocking is good for the game or not.

Sportsmanlike? Doesn't matter. Legal? Doesn't matter. Viable? Doesn't matter.

And FFG should be smart enough to realize that the viability shouldn't be the key criteria, at least not the way they have seemed to define it. No, people aren't winning regionals/Nationals/Worlds with this. But clearly in some situations it is a viable strategy. And at the end of the day, X-Wing is a game, FFG is a game company, and games are supposed to be FUN. There are enough people in this thread alone who believe this to be a decidedly un-fun strategy. The reaction to these types of tactics by those on the receiving end of them are what FFG has to concern themselves with, and they have to concern themselves with it for all players and not just the competitive environment, where such tricks might be seen as justifiable.

So no, a rule change isn't needed to fix a broken unbeatable strategy. A rule change is necessary to remove bad play experiences and un-fun things from the game.

"Sportsmanship" is an utterly irrelevant point when discussing legal tactics in high level tournament play.

The question is does the fortress builds break the game and encourage rule lawyering to a point where such rulings are needed. From what I understand is that they are not winning any tournaments, and I have seen worse forms of rule exploitation that was very unsportsmanlike.

Here's how I answer that:

Consider introducing a new player to the game who'd never experienced X-wing before by showing him that game. Think about what it would show someone considering getting into the game. Are you fine with that image? Do you think you could make a good impression with that game all by itself, or would you have to rattle off a bunch of excuses about how it's really not that good, and not many people use it, and...

<shrug> I've passed on games that demonstrated far less degeneracy.

ive met today a guy in a local store touarnement with 2 lambdas and 1 tie bomber. captian jonus with wingman

1 omricon with HLC and advanced sensors and colonel jendon with HLC, weapon engeneers, advanced sensors, st-321 and so on. it was a nightmare to fight i maybe should have flanked him but nah i flew into his arms and died. he won the touarnement. with out moving 1 inch on the table. sure this game is all about moving and yeah theres the joke if u dont move wheres the moving ?`well iam sad and hope that this gets erata that such actions are not legal or something

Sportsmanlike? Doesn't matter. Legal? Doesn't matter. Viable? Doesn't matter.

And FFG should be smart enough to realize that the viability shouldn't be the key criteria, at least not the way they have seemed to define it. No, people are winning regionals/Nationals/Worlds with this. But clearly in some situations it is a viable strategy. And at the end of the day, X-Wing is a game, FFG is a game company, and games are supposed to be FUN. There are enough people in this thread alone who believe this to be a decidedly un-fun strategy. The reaction to these types of tactics by those on the receiving end of them are what FFG has to concern themselves with, and they have to concern themselves with it for all players and not just the competitive environment, where such tricks might be seen as justifiable.

So no, a rule change isn't needed to fix a broken unbeatable strategy. A rule change is necessary to remove bad play experiences and un-fun things from the game.

Why should FFG do what I say vs what others say?

Sportsmanlike? Doesn't matter. Legal? Doesn't matter. Viable? Doesn't matter.

And FFG should be smart enough to realize that the viability shouldn't be the key criteria, at least not the way they have seemed to define it. No, people aren't winning regionals/Nationals/Worlds with this. But clearly in some situations it is a viable strategy. And at the end of the day, X-Wing is a game, FFG is a game company, and games are supposed to be FUN. There are enough people in this thread alone who believe this to be a decidedly un-fun strategy. The reaction to these types of tactics by those on the receiving end of them are what FFG has to concern themselves with, and they have to concern themselves with it for all players and not just the competitive environment, where such tricks might be seen as justifiable.

So no, a rule change isn't needed to fix a broken unbeatable strategy. A rule change is necessary to remove bad play experiences and un-fun things from the game.

You speak for everyone on what is fun? There are just as many people here who didn't have a problem with it.

"Gee, i sure do like that bit, during A New Hope, when those 3 X-Wings managed to go nose to nose in the Death Star Trench so they could take multiple shots at that exhaust vent...."

Im honestly sickened by those of you trying to claim that the Imperial Player was at fault for not 'dealing with it'. If you're using a list that Outmaneuvers, you wait to see where your opponent is gonna be, if saw your opponent turtled in a corner, KNOWING he needed to come to you to get the win as you had initiative, you may be wary of a counter attack, you may be reluctant to move in expecting him to be waiting for you. A Phantom is after all easier to deal with if you know its approach and i dont doubt that the idea to just get a cheap Initiative win may have crossed his mind but i give him credit for actually trying to engage his opponent.

I dont fault either players tactics within the written rules. But to start laying into the Imperial player, for actually trying to play the game is BS. And yes, i consider the fortress tactic a game denial tactic. He's still within the rules, but he is deliberately CHOOSING to use those rules to effectively take his units out of the game.

The question is does the fortress builds break the game and encourage rule lawyering to a point where such rulings are needed. From what I understand is that they are not winning any tournaments, and I have seen worse forms of rule exploitation that was very unsportsmanlike.

Here's how I answer that:

Consider introducing a new player to the game who'd never experienced X-wing before by showing him that game. Think about what it would show someone considering getting into the game. Are you fine with that image? Do you think you could make a good impression with that game all by itself, or would you have to rattle off a bunch of excuses about how it's really not that good, and not many people use it, and...

<shrug> I've passed on games that demonstrated far less degeneracy.

Not a good argument.

You introduce new players with easy to use rules, tactics, and units. Always.

You start with 2 TIE/ln and 1 X-Wing , not Whisper and a swarm vs Corran Horn and Han Solo. You build up rules when you intro new players like you build up tactics.

Yes, it is an unfun strategy. But, how is it different from just moving up and down the side of the map? Pretty much waiting for the opponent to make a move first. How about killing a TIE and running away? Movement doesn't necessarily make a strategy more in the "spirit" of the game.

If this was a viable strategy for top tier play, we would've seen it more than we have. We haven't. So, yes, it is an unfun strategy. But, in all honesty, it is pretty bad.