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.

I can get behind this, even though my opinion on the matchup is obviously not

indifferent as close as I am to the imperial player. We talked about strategies for a while on our way home, while we are both of the opinion (and yes, it's just our opinion) that the fortress tactic is lame and all that jazz, our strategies are vastly different. He chose his strategy to fly around and wait for engagement based on his own set of principles and there's nothing wrong with that as far as "playing to win" goes. He still had a good chance of winning but whiffed his die rolls.

Oh well.

It surprises me most that this is actually such a major topic of discussion. Both of us, actually. Everyone has the right to an opinion on sportsmanship or whatever you want to call it, but if FFG makes rules based on a single setup or tactic it could spell out bad news for the game. And that's why players don't make the rules, but FFG does.

Anyway, I really like your post here. It was nice to meet you in person. I hope we get the chance to play on vassal.

FFG rules on specifics all the time. Most of the FAQ is specific rulings. FFG updated the main rules just for the Andrasta title.

FFG rules on specifics all the time. Most of the FAQ is specific rulings. FFG updated the main rules just for the Andrasta title.

We are playing a game that represents fighters engaging in combat in space. Intentionally crashing your ships into another should never be part of such game.

Make any argument you wish to justify it but it won't matter, such behavior will drive away players. Castle all you want at the tournaments and cite how righteous this or any other ridiculous tactic is, but I and others won't be there to listen to such garbage. And before long there will be no tournaments or x-wing.

Fortress is about as ignorant as it comes but it will be all the more laughable when Capt. O. and his Dauntless show up with their friends Ruthlessness, Gunner, Mara Jade, and Mr. Proton Bomb.

This thread and others really sealed the deal on x-wing events IMHO. I foresaw this and predicted the status of the game over a year ago.

The rise and fall of xwing and fat Han can play his fiddle as the Falcon burns.

We are playing a game that represents fighters engaging in combat in space. Intentionally crashing your ships into another should never be part of such game.

Make any argument you wish to justify it but it won't matter, such behavior will drive away players. Castle all you want at the tournaments and cite how righteous this or any other ridiculous tactic is, but I and others won't be there to listen to such garbage. And before long there will be no tournaments or x-wing.

Fortress is about as ignorant as it comes but it will be all the more laughable when Capt. O. and his Dauntless show up with their friends Ruthlessness, Gunner, Mara Jade, and Mr. Proton Bomb.

This thread and others really sealed the deal on x-wing events IMHO. I foresaw this and predicted the status of the game over a year ago.

The rise and fall of xwing and fat Han can play his fiddle as the Falcon burns.

You could not be more hyperbolic with this post.

Weird, because of the Fat Falcon games I watched this weekend looked really fun. I've even had fun against double Falcons.

You are welcome to your opinion. But it is still just another slip down that slippery path to 40Wing.

Nobody cares about Fat Han. It is the other behaviors that are detrimental.

The rise and fall of xwing and fat Han can play his fiddle as the Falcon burns.

This is exactly the kind of thing that me, as a new player, doesn't like to see.

Good thing I'm enjoying the hell out of this game.

Ok, I'm extremely confused Doublenot. If you don't quote, you might want to reference who you are talking to.

A primarily ineffective gambit that only suceeded because of some better then average dice and an opponents inaction in dealing with it is the herald of X-wing Tournament apocalypse?

That is quite the reach.

Isn't shaming any tactic or build that you don't personally like a hallmark of 40k's competitive issues? The absurdity that is a sportsmanship score and such.

No, the shaming of a tactic is a hallmark of the "militant casual". Highly competitive players do have their drawbacks, but sadly, some casuals are just as bad.

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.

Simple, and no character assassination or ban hammers required.

That's the way to beat Han, kill the escorts and win on points or make him engage you. However, the rules changes in the final. It's untimed. That's something I don't understand, why change the rules for the last match? Suddenly your perfectly viable strategy to beat fat Han goes down the drain. Han will just continue to evade you while taking shots that eventually will bring you down.

Oh, and please ban the protocol droid!

Reading the article, I am apparently one step away from being a scrub. I don't play to win. I play to have fun, to fly plastic ships, to entertain. I recently played a quick two game matchup with a friend. As we were at my house, using my ships, I used some of my premaid lists for both of us. Lost both matches to my friend. Had a blast. The idea that I lost twice to a guy I had just taught how to play struck me as funny. Course, I did give him the better list in both matches, but still.

My personal story, setting the way back machine to '94. I was playing a chess tourney at my high school, and my opponent in my last game was a few years younger than me. Quickly apparent he was a better player than me. But I was 'playing to win.' I used psychological warfare. I had a very strong defensive position. He was poised to attack the second I came out. So I moved one piece back and forth without leaving my lovely fortress. Back and forth. Back and forth. Kid got more and more frustrated. I smiled and refused to come out. The kid got so frustrated and angry he almost cried, and stormed out. So I won against the obviously superior player because I played a head game on him.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth to this day. I have never played that way again. I'm not that guy. Don't want to be that guy. I play for fun. I play to relax. I play to entertain my opponent as much as myself.

From the sounds of it, I have no place at a tourney. If the 'play to win' mentality is what is required I don't want a place.

The issue at hand is believing "Play to Win" is somehow at odds with "Fly Casual". From your anecdote, I wonder that the kid could possibly have been a good chess player. A single return to a previous position would allow the opponent all the development advantage he would need to win, multiple development setbacks would be nearly a concession. If he didn't know how to deal with a terribly, terribly bad strategy and was also unable to handle losing with composure there were indeed issues at hand but none of them involved your play.

Having said that I wouldn't feel good either if I upset a young person. I do the best I can to make the game enjoyable for them. I also play as well as I can at tournaments, I feel as if doing less than that would be a disservice to my opponent. There is an enormous difference of context as well, and the people who play in different circumstances have different expectations. A competitive tournament or league is the place to pull out the stops and play every corner case in the game. Refusing to do so makes it less enjoyable for those who want a competitive game, and those are the people who come to those events. This is not the same thing as being a jerk, in a competitive environment you still expect good behavior but you also expect the most effective strategies available to be used. In other settings, people may be wanting to play themed builds, or have a chance to try out some sub-par strategies (TIE Advanced, for example), and in those circumstances pulling out all the stops may be a negative experience. For people like me, I can enjoy both I just want to know what we are doing before we start.

Maybe you wouldn't enjoy a tournament, maybe you would. If you go expecting people to conform to the expectations of theme night you will not have a good time. If you go expecting them to pull out all the stops and want to test yourself against it to see how you do, you will have a great time.

As for me being a scrub, I fear I may have overstated my case. I am (obviously) a competitive player but I give in to the temptation to run oddball lists in the hopes of finding the "next big thing". I have the dubious distinction of being the first guy to bring a super/fat/whatever Falcon to a competitive tournament, and so could possibly be the guy deserving of the most credit/blame for Fat Han. I know the devs were somewhat impressed/horrified when they observed it in action for the first time at the Minnesota regionals. Once it caught on, I lost interest in it. Within the self-imposed limitations of always wanting to run something unique, however, I do my very best to win every game and expect my opponents to do so as well.

EDIT: KineticOperator made my point far better than I did.

The way I see it, it's a game first, competition second. It's only worth my time if it's fun, as my free time is extremely valuable as well as limited. If I spent the money and time to make it to regionals or worlds, then get matched up against someone who is willing to forfeit the valuable part of the game in an attempt to win some bragging rights, I will be less than pleased.

I'm glad x-wing competition prizes are mainly bragging rights. If there were cash prizes, ugh...don't when want to consider the scum it would draw out.

Ok, I'm extremely confused Doublenot. If you don't quote, you might want to reference who you are talking to.

My response about Fat Han was concerning your comment. Since we both referenced Fat Han, a quote dud nit seem to be required for context.

My other comment was in response to doubting Scottie.

The rise and fall of xwing and fat Han can play his fiddle as the Falcon burns.

This is exactly the kind of thing that me, as a new player, doesn't like to see.

Good thing I'm enjoying the hell out of this game.

The rise and fall of xwing and fat Han can play his fiddle as the Falcon burns.

This is exactly the kind of thing that me, as a new player, doesn't like to see.

Good thing I'm enjoying the hell out of this game.

Good for you. Your comment us exactly what some veterans don't like to see: The attraction of players who play by anything not forbidden within the rules to win.

And comments like this are what no one likes to see: a new player being told he isn't welcome because some jackass doesn't like his approach to gaming.

You, kind sir, have just demonstrated more clearly than I ever could, why your attitude is the real problem here.

There are some on the other side of this fence that I know to be of good character, others not so much...

But someone please explain to me how the intentional ramming your own vessels into one another should be accepted as okay in a game that represents space fighter combat? Maybe we should exchange our nicely done ships for a bunch of blocks, that would make far more sense.

Just because something is not specified as being illegal under the rules does not mean it is right. It is nothing more than an exploitation of a loophole.

Don't attach any terminology De jour to this under the guise of "casual, competitive, shaming, or sportsmanship. " There are no conditions to right and wrong, you don't get to pick and choose at the ethical salad bar of life.

Build whatever fleet you want but when you start purposefully crashing your spaceships into one another as a viable tactic, it's time to walk away.

The rise and fall of xwing and fat Han can play his fiddle as the Falcon burns.

This is exactly the kind of thing that me, as a new player, doesn't like to see.

Good thing I'm enjoying the hell out of this game.

Good for you. Your comment us exactly what some veterans don't like to see: The attraction of players who play by anything not forbidden within the rules to win.

And comments like this are what no one likes to see: a new player being told he isn't welcome because some jackass doesn't like his approach to gaming.

You, kind sir, have just demonstrated more clearly than I ever could, why your attitude is the real problem here.

Don't be so pathetic as to call me good sir and jackass within the same post and try to come off as moral.

I never told the new comer that he was not welcomed. I mirrored his comment. If my comment is taken as not wanting new players then his is equally taken as not wanting veteran players to remain playing.

Personally, I'm content to play with friends every once in a while, but I can see the appeal of playing tournaments. It's just not my thing.

If that makes me a "scrub", then so be it, I have great fun flying thematic lists or playing scenario games. Mind you, the people I play feel the same way.

If I went to any sort of competitive event I'd expect others to play to win - including using Fat Han or any other strong list, or flying your opponent off the table if you get the chance (as discussed here the other day).

As a final note, for me gaming is not only about the game and rules, gaming is also a social interaction. Playing to win, playing by the rules is one thing, but there's no need to be a **** about it.

Interesting thread and discussion. A most interesting article as well.

I did participate in the fortress discussion next door, albeit shortly.

Within that and this thread I have the impression the emotional side is an important part in ´scrub´-argumentation, where as the ´play-to-win´ type player wishes to leave emotions out of it. Apart from using it against his/her opponent, after all, if you can upset your opponent by setting up in a fortress and then surprise them by not staying in it, this might help you win.

What I really appreciated in the presented article is the Japanese ´soft-ban´. The gentleman´s agreement of not using certain characters or combinations. Some local meta´s might already have been defined by such a soft-ban.

Take the simply masterfull tie-swarms. Some of my regular opponents don´t use it anymore after learning how to use it to win. Not because it is overpowered. It was because they had mastered it and now it was time to master something new.

I think this type of player is overlooked many times. The player who doesn´t play just to win the game, who doesn´t play to just defeat his opponent, but also wishes to improve himself on a mental level.

It's a bad article, written by someone trying to justify why nobody wants to play with them anymore. It seems to be saying: 'I'm not to blame for nobody turning up to my games nights or tournaments, it must be their fault! Don't those 'scrubs' know that I have a disorder that compulses me to play games just for the sweet dopamine injection I get for winning?'

I mean, literally all of his anecdotes read: 'so I was just playing against my friend (he's such a scrub lol) and he was all 'why did you even invite me here if you're just gonna press x over and over until you win?' and i was all 'l2p scrub' and then he left and now nobody plays games with me any more (must all be scrubs lol)'