Nothing wrong with playing a competitive game.

My only caution is Do you need to win in order to enjoy the game?

No you can't, because those concepts are all subjective opinions. If you ban turtling in the corner for 45 minutes then people will just turtle for 44 minutes. If you define the "corner" as a given region of the table then people will just put their formation 1mm outside that area. Which is the whole point I was making about "fortress" not being a discrete thing where you can clearly and objectively define what is and isn't a "fortress". It's a subjective opinion that a given strategy is "too much", a threshold which each person sets differently.

I think you may have taken my comment a bit too literally there, Peregrine. Or just simply (or willfully) not understood it full stop. Either way, it makes it pointless continuing to debate this with you. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

I agree with the article in principle(especially about list-building), but language like that probably isn't going to win anybody over. Not everyone who doesn't smash their opponents over the head with technicalities is a scrub. I daresay some of them are world champions

People can definitely be poor sports, but going on witch hunts under the banner of sportsmanship over in-game tactics rather than personal behavior does not demonstrate either maturity or respect for the community.

What I'm seeing here is an expressed dislike of a tactic, not of the players using it. I have not seen a single post that says "Richard is cheap, Richard is unsportsmanlike, Richard is a WAAC". While some posts describe the Fortress tactic as unsportsmanlike or words to that effect and the implication in the phrasing often suggests that it is unsportsmanlike of a player to use the Fortress tactic, I have not seen it be made personal.

If you want to continue to decry the Fortress and use Richard as your scapegoat, go ahead. But, you will continue to ignore the source of the issue, the lack of incentive to force engagement. Which, when you get to Single Elimination without the use of Margin of Victory, makes a lot of cheesy strategies more viable. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but I think I recognize the true issue.

The time limits incentivising non-engagement are indeed an issue, and fortressing being incentivised is indeed a symptom of that issue. However, I believe fortressing in of itself is something that, regardless of viability, needs to go now that it runs the risk of becoming popular. I do not believe there is any benefit to not "patching it out" of the game.

No you can't, because those concepts are all subjective opinions. If you ban turtling in the corner for 45 minutes then people will just turtle for 44 minutes. If you define the "corner" as a given region of the table then people will just put their formation 1mm outside that area. Which is the whole point I was making about "fortress" not being a discrete thing where you can clearly and objectively define what is and isn't a "fortress". It's a subjective opinion that a given strategy is "too much", a threshold which each person sets differently.

Fortressing is a discrete thing just as sneakily looking at your opponent's dials is a discrete thing. If a player flies their ships into one another such that they don't move and repeately selects maneuvers as to keep their ships immobile then they are fortressing. If TOs can rule on dodgy dice rolling they can certainly rule on infinite self-blocking loops. There's never doubt as to if something's a fortress or not.

Why would it get popular now? It hasn't been popular since the theory first came out in Wave 2, and apparently possible since the beginning of the game.

Because it turned up in a Worlds final round match.

How many times do we have to say that what Richard did is in no way "bad sportsmanship" or "against the spirit of the game". Let it go, stop decrying the guy and move on.

He used a legitimate tactic, that quite frankly is extremely risky at best.

I don't know Richard, but I know people who do and they ALL say he is a great guy to play against.

If you don't like the "Fortress" complain against the "Fortress".

This forum is getting dangerously like the Warhammer forums I can no longer stand, where we attack and denigrate people instead of looking at the game with a healthy discussion.

That is all.

Thx Pete

If you don't like the "Fortress" complain against the "Fortress".

That's what people are doing.

Actually, it would be great if we would do that on the thread dealing with the fortress specifically. The issue on hand here, is whether it is appropriate to complain about ANY tactic, or if the issue is really the mentality that specific tactics even SHOULD be banned.

I agree with the article in principle(especially about list-building), but language like that probably isn't going to win anybody over. Not everyone who doesn't smash their opponents over the head with technicalities is a scrub. I daresay some of them are world champions

Sirlin is definitely pretty harsh and I have never agreed with the condescending way he words his arguments (he is an arrogant ass in general by all accounts), but his original target audience came from an era where you could literally get beat up at arcades for just utilizing basic game mechanics that the local group thought were cheap. To that particular demographic at that particular time a wakeup call was necessary and wording things nicely probably would not have cut it. In the many years since then that community has improved tremendously and I can honestly credit that article as at least being a catalyst if not a direct cause.

Okay then Kinetic. Well then do you think that tactics that create an overwhelmingly negative play experience for one player in a two player game should be allowed? I'm not talking about a game where a player simply was outflown or ran into a list he was unprepared to fight.

What if we had to play a Best of 5 timed games against each other, and every single game i deployed my forces in a fortress formation in a corner with an asteroid screen. Would you count that as an enjoyable experience even if you beat me every single game? Where for a large chunk of the game time i did literally nothing but wait for you to decide on an approach. Or even if I lost because you played keep away and i waited too long to come out and kill a ship?

FFG has already proven their willing to address tactics or builds that people find "unfair", as the Auto(thrusters/throttle) is supposed to help against turret lists. Just because its taking them some time to properly address the problem doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

If each one of us is directly responsible for the amount of fun our opponents have, then everyone I play against should just let me win.

FFG has already proven their willing to address tactics or builds that people find "unfair", as the Auto(thrusters/throttle) is supposed to help against turret lists. Just because its taking them some time to properly address the problem doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

Not at all the same thing. FFG are trying to make Interceptors and other (non-Phantom) arc-dodgers more relevant by giving them something to use against their natural counter. This is little different from their attempts to let A-wings see more play by reducing their cost, or of trying to encourage less generic B-wing use by making uniques of actual relevance. The Auto-thruster is not and never has been an attempt to bump turrets off because FFG think they are "un-fun" (or whatever other silly adjective you want to use).

On the whole X-wing is not a competitive game, it's a social one. The idea that players hold no responsibility in it - that it's all up to FFG, and as long as FFG hasn't made it illegal yet it's fine - is a disturbing one.

It's a competitive game when played in a competitive arena, like you know say a World Championship. The game doesn't define itself so much as the setting in which you are playing it.

The idea that players hold no responsibility in it - that it's all up to FFG, and as long as FFG hasn't made it illegal yet it's fine - is a disturbing one.

Why? If something is allowed by the rules, then it's part of the game and should be accepted as such. You can argue that those rules should be changed, but no one should fear having their character assassinated for playing by the rules.

Here's the other thing for me, at the end of the day. Has anyone, ever, made a positive case for fortressing? Not "It's legal" or "But it sucks" or "Play to Win" or "But it'll be hard to fix it without side effects" or "Don't change it just because of some internet whiners", but an affirmative case that the game is better off with fortressing than it would be without it?

Consider bumping. Lots of people dislike bumping, but there's a positive case to be made for it - it evens up the utility of pilot skill, makes action control/advantage a more active part of the game, and rewards both maneuver and positioning. People may disagree with that, but at least the argument is there.

So why is the game better with fortressing than without it? Because in all the times this has come up, from the very first Millennium Fortress post to now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that case.

It's hysterical. You basically say, hey, my ships haven't activated their thrusters. "Come At Me, Bro."

I used to do a build with two shuttles (Omicron Group Pilot with HLC, Jendon wiht HLC, Advanced Sensors, ST-321, Weapons Engineer and Two Black Squads, one with wingman) and would have Omnicron stop. The blacksquads would crash, Jendon would advance sensors target lock then crash, hand one TL to the OGP and the Black Wingman would take the OGP's stress. I would force everyone to come to me, taking several shots at anything that came at me. Once the wingman died, I'd start chasing people with Shuttles and would usually lose because my Group plays interceptors and A-Wings and phantoms, and Falcons with Engine Upgrade and expert handling and etc. Everyone thought it was an interesting way to deal with the local meta of "You can't catch me!" by forcing them to go on the offensive.

However the x-wing fortress is laughably bad. I've tried it against a few people in my group, whisper and ties with actions are way more dangerous than a bunch of X-wings with 1 action. The Xwings lose biggs quick, and then if they try and follow they get eaten alive by whisper.

I can't figure out why he didn't just charge at the "fortress".

Honestly, I think this whole "outrage" is only a thing because this community lose to lose it's head over every little thing that happens. This ship has a new upgrade, or this gives blank a boost, or more turrets, and everyone loses their mind.

Also, can we at least wait to see what Autothrusters do before we start lauding them as a keystone of FFG design to fix issues?

Should the Fortress tactic be banned? Before we jump on the "ban" wagon lets look at it.

Player A sets up there ships to stay put. What does this get them?

• It buys them time to see how their opponent is going to approach.
• You force you opponent to tip their hand if they want to engage ( This is the part that nettles people )

What do they give up to do this?

• They give up their actions
• They are stationary and potentially easy targets.
• They are predictable.

How does this effect Player B? They now have a few choices.

• They can form an attack plan and engage the opponent
• They can not engage and play a game of chicken to see who moves out of their corner first. Who ever has init has the biggest edge here.
• They can bait their opponent and trick them into breaking their own fortress.

I feel like this tactic is always a gamble. What you give up often out weighs what you gain buy it. I've seen this played and I've played it myself before. I've run a shuttle build that would park and force my opponent to come to me. Sometimes it paid off sometimes it didn't. It's a risk. What I find happens most with this tactic is get under my opponents skin. It bothers people often to the point when they make a mistake. Most players who know about this tactic aren't bothered. They just collect themselves and figure out the best approach. Once they do that the game moves on.

The tactic is not about refusing to play, it's about forcing your opponent to make the first move, and hoping they choose poorly. In the case of a horrible match up this is a valid strategy, but not the only one. If this was the only tactic for bad match ups you would see it a lot more. Really this tactic doesn't come up that often.

I've never seen this tactic used in a non competitive event. In casual play it's never come up for me and I've been playing sense the beginning. Others may have different experiences but I think most players will have had a similar experience.

I think banning this tactic would be worse for the game then letting it fade to the back ground. It's not a strong play. Once you start banning certain moves you open pandora's box.

FFG has already proven their willing to address tactics or builds that people find "unfair", as the Auto(thrusters/throttle) is supposed to help against turret lists. Just because its taking them some time to properly address the problem doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

Not at all the same thing. FFG are trying to make Interceptors and other (non-Phantom) arc-dodgers more relevant by giving them something to use against their natural counter. This is little different from their attempts to let A-wings see more play by reducing their cost, or of trying to encourage less generic B-wing use by making uniques of actual relevance. The Auto-thruster is not and never has been an attempt to bump turrets off because FFG think they are "un-fun" (or whatever other silly adjective you want to use).

Where did i say that they were trying to bump off turrets? I said its supposed to help against turrets, and that is exactly the same as what they've done with the A and B wings. You don't see many interceptors, turrets being a big part of that, so they're releasing a fix. A fix is a fix is a fix. Just because its for a different problem in a different way doesn't change that.

Honestly, I think this whole "outrage" is only a thing because this community lose to lose it's head over every little thing that happens. This ship has a new upgrade, or this gives blank a boost, or more turrets, and everyone loses their mind.

You're right in that the forum goes through cycles of sky falling alarmingly regularly. Fortressing, however, has never been what you'd call popular on this forum.

Okay then Kinetic. Well then do you think that tactics that create an overwhelmingly negative play experience for one player in a two player game should be allowed? I'm not talking about a game where a player simply was outflown or ran into a list he was unprepared to fight.

What if we had to play a Best of 5 timed games against each other, and every single game i deployed my forces in a fortress formation in a corner with an asteroid screen. Would you count that as an enjoyable experience even if you beat me every single game? Where for a large chunk of the game time i did literally nothing but wait for you to decide on an approach. Or even if I lost because you played keep away and i waited too long to come out and kill a ship?

FFG has already proven their willing to address tactics or builds that people find "unfair", as the Auto(thrusters/throttle) is supposed to help against turret lists. Just because its taking them some time to properly address the problem doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

I will bite a bit here. How would there be a negative play experience here? If you fort up against me, I form up and hit you. My 100 point squad with actions shooting at the somewhere around 2/3 of your forces (because that is all that can draw a bead on me) without actions. Even against Fortress Falcons I can ensure that only one of your Falcons is in range. I beat you soundly, the whole thing takes about 15 minutes, and we play another game. It certainly doesn't take an hour to resolve.

If you insist on losing that same way 5 times in a row, I find a new opponent that will give me a greater challenge. This is just like what I would do with anyone who insists on playing badly and not improving, it has nothing to do with a fortress tactic. Fortunately, most people would learn after the first game (or maybe the second) that it just doesn't work very well against someone prepared for facing it. Who knows, maybe you will get lucky and win one in ten games. If so, good for you but I still doubt I will see you on the top tables and if I do I will be fortunate to get an easy win.

Richard didn't stay in his fort "indefinitely" all by himself. His opponent didn't take the steps necessary to force the issue, and in the end Richard retook the initiative (by moving out) and won the game. Richard didn't "just park", and his opponent wasn't forced to kill time. Facing Richard I would have taken a different strategy, but then again I have faced this tactic before and learned to deal with it.

Just like Paul Heaver's Fat Han build. I play guys with that build regularly, and my tactic for dealing with it is much different than what I saw people trying to do this weekend (unsuccessfully I might add). If your opponent insist on running Han away, change the circumstances so he can't. In this case, get a point lead on him by destroying his Z-95s. Once you are in front, Han is obligated to engage you and you can now dictate the terms of the fight. Against a non-boost Falcon you kill the Falcon first, against a boost-Falcon you kill the escorts first (to prevent kiting). I came to the same conclusion when facing Typo, kill the escort and dictate the terms of the engagement.

Simple, and no character assassination or ban hammers required.

On the whole X-wing is not a competitive game, it's a social one. The idea that players hold no responsibility in it - that it's all up to FFG, and as long as FFG hasn't made it illegal yet it's fine - is a disturbing one.

So what is our responsibility? To cry foul over a niche strategy that is far from format warping, in the hopes of an official response because a handful of people think it's boring or unfair? Or is it our responsibility to act like open-minded adults and accept that some things might, might be okay even if we don't personally like them?

The idea that players hold no responsibility in it - that it's all up to FFG, and as long as FFG hasn't made it illegal yet it's fine - is a disturbing one.

Why? If something is allowed by the rules, then it's part of the game and should be accepted as such. You can argue that those rules should be changed, but no one should fear having their character assassinated for playing by the rules.

There are a great many things that are accepted by the rules and yet not accepted as proper behavior. Let's take a simple example: Is there anyone who would look at someone playing hyper-aggressive against a new player, or a young kid, with zero tolerance for missed actions or mistakes, as acceptable? It's perfectly within the rules, right? But this is almost always brought up as an example of jerk play, and this poor caricature of a player has his character constantly assassinated despite every play he makes being perfectly legal.

Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - believes that anything legal always goes all the time. Everyone has a line somewhere for what constitutes an unacceptable way to play the game. You may think that line vanishes past some certain level of competitiveness, but I don't. Where your line is, and which side of it any given tactic will fall on, is going to be personal. But a blanket "Anything legal is right" is obviously wrong.

The idea that players hold no responsibility in it - that it's all up to FFG, and as long as FFG hasn't made it illegal yet it's fine - is a disturbing one.

Why? If something is allowed by the rules, then it's part of the game and should be accepted as such. You can argue that those rules should be changed, but no one should fear having their character assassinated for playing by the rules.

There are a great many things that are accepted by the rules and yet not accepted as proper behavior. Let's take a simple example: Is there anyone who would look at someone playing hyper-aggressive against a new player, or a young kid, with zero tolerance for missed actions or mistakes, as acceptable? It's perfectly within the rules, right? But this is almost always brought up as an example of jerk play, and this poor caricature of a player has his character constantly assassinated despite every play he makes being perfectly legal.

And there are just as many people defending this alleged "win at all costs" attitude, because they understand it's not okay to pass that kind of character judgment on a person for playing to win within the rules. Not to mention that context matters, a lot. How do we define who is new? Who is young? Where does demeanor factor into the equation? At what point do you adjudge someone competent enough to go all out against them, despite their newness or age, or are people too varied for there to be some kind of universal gauge? At what point is it not okay for me to want to win?

I think your comment has hit right on the heart of the matter: there isn't an aspect of the rules being discussed here that isn't purely subjective, and instead of acknowledging that what we're really debating are our opinions regarding personal taste, we're pretending that there's some kind of moral standard that should be applied to how we play the game. What are our objective reasons for taking issue with how the game is played? The "intent" or "spirit" of the game? Subjective, from our point of view. Show me how the format is being warped by the tactic in question, and show me how many people are leaving the game because of it. Maybe then we can begin to discuss in terms of good and bad, rather than like and not-like.

Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - believes that anything legal always goes all the time.

Are you sure about that? I think most of us here are acquainted with your less-than-optimistic appraisal of the rules of X-Wing, so I'm sure you'll forgive me for being just a tad bit wary of any unintended bias in a comment so absolute as the one you just made. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt: which perfectly legal aspect of the game should I take issue with? Feel free to use your previous example, assuming you answer my questions above.