So I fly Brobots. If you place them facing forwards with their sides flush against one another, they can do hard one turns into each other and not move. This is extremely useful for seeing what direction my opponent commits to.

Why don't more people do this? Not just with Brobots, but everything else in general.

Because not moving means I can't dictate the engagement, only my breakaway.

Because it is a bad strategy?

Because it is a bad strategy?

Actually it's not. Wait for the prime opportunity to move out from it and vaporize something with your two Brobots.

Have you seen the HATE the fortressing gets? Although perfectly legal it carries such a stigma that some claim to rage quit if they see someone playing that way.

Because it is a bad strategy?

Actually it's not. Wait for the prime opportunity to move out from it and vaporize something with your two Brobots.

Considering that the maneuvers needed to get out of the fortress doesn't change much, I do not imagine it is that big of an advantage.

Because it is a bad strategy?

It's a bad strategy except in a narrow context. When it's useful, it's really useful, but mostly it's a detriment.

I see it reasonably often with brobots.

Because I'd rather not sit there denying myself actions just to show I can.

It can definitely be good, especially with slow and hard to reposition ships. I find that lambda shuttles are very commonly fortressed. YV666s too as they want to keep the world in their forward arc. But palp aces are definitely the main list I see fortressing with.

On the one hand it can draw the enemy into the asteroid field and force them to play their approach. On the other, it makes you very localised and potentially quite predictable and reactive. I'm not sure I think it's amazing with brobots, for example, who can really move very fast and unpredictably. I prefer to start them quite far apart and then rush one over to the other side to try and over-extend the enemy and leave the other IG88 in a good position.

Because I'd rather not sit there denying myself actions just to show I can.

You don't stay in the fortress when the enemy is in range. You break out of it when the enemy has committed to an approach and is about to get in range.

Flying certain lists against certain other lists I do. But I don't often fly those lists.

I fortress all the time when flying Brobots, YV-666s and Lambdas. Information is everything, and seeing where your opponent is going to move on those first few turns is huge.

Because not moving means I can't dictate the engagement, only my breakaway.

When done well, an opening fortress can actually help you dictate the engagement. Low-PS pilots like OGPs are placed blind, so fortressing can give you some flexibility in determining your approachs. With Brobots, it gives you more information for the second turn, where your deployment and boosting abilities can help.

It depends on how many rounds I suspect Ill need for my opponent to commit to one direction over the other, but usually a 1 forward or series of hard turns can accomplish the same thing AND you dont have to keep your ships together to pull it off. Sometimes though, you just HAVE to fortress for at least one round to "out wait" your opponent. This game honestly often comes down to "who is more patient".

My only issue is that EVERY Palp Ace I watch or match against sits in the corner for a round or 2. It mostly annoys me, haha, not that it isnt the correct choice to ensure that the shuttle stays useful. Just means I have to play EVEN more patiently than the shuttle.

I fortress all the time when flying Brobots, YV-666s and Lambdas. Information is everything, and seeing where your opponent is going to move on those first few turns is huge.

Because not moving means I can't dictate the engagement, only my breakaway.

When done well, an opening fortress can actually help you dictate the engagement. Low-PS pilots like OGPs are placed blind, so fortressing can give you some flexibility in determining your approachs. With Brobots, it gives you more information for the second turn, where your deployment and boosting abilities can help.

You're granted a degree of intel sure, but being able to utilise it is a different matter.

I don't mind running shuttles up against things but generally I have an optimal approach determined by the state of the board. Jumpmasters for example can slow-roll excellently, gaining that information while reacting to it at the same time.

But moving second and reacting second means I'm not making my opponent react to my actions. As long as I'm busy reacting I have a reduced capacity to dictate the engagement. That and the nature of the dice are why Fortressing is a generally suboptimal strategy.

A lot of ppl do this, usually with Palp and Wampa for the first few turns. Sometimes they have ships that they simply don't want to have in the fight. And sometimes they do it to see how and where I'll maneuver the debris fields. Then they'll break off and intercept on their own terms. I generally don't do this because I play aggressive lists, and I prefer to engage the enemy on their side of the fields. That way after our first joust, I have room to k turn, and unless they wanna park on a rock, they don't have room lol

I fortress all the time when flying Brobots, YV-666s and Lambdas. Information is everything, and seeing where your opponent is going to move on those first few turns is huge.

Because not moving means I can't dictate the engagement, only my breakaway.

When done well, an opening fortress can actually help you dictate the engagement. Low-PS pilots like OGPs are placed blind, so fortressing can give you some flexibility in determining your approachs. With Brobots, it gives you more information for the second turn, where your deployment and boosting abilities can help.

You're granted a degree of intel sure, but being able to utilise it is a different matter.

I don't mind running shuttles up against things but generally I have an optimal approach determined by the state of the board. Jumpmasters for example can slow-roll excellently, gaining that information while reacting to it at the same time.

But moving second and reacting second means I'm not making my opponent react to my actions. As long as I'm busy reacting I have a reduced capacity to dictate the engagement. That and the nature of the dice are why Fortressing is a generally suboptimal strategy.

Actually, fortressing allows you to better react to your opponent. If you know that he has committed to a direction, you're better able to react to the threat.

Have you seen the HATE the fortressing gets? Although perfectly legal it carries such a stigma that some claim to rage quit if they see someone playing that way.

You do realize you're asking PGS, right?

Have you seen the HATE the fortressing gets? Although perfectly legal it carries such a stigma that some claim to rage quit if they see someone playing that way.

You do realize you're asking PGS, right?

Obviously I know that there is a stigma around it, but it's so useful and easy to do with Brobots I wonder why I don't see it more often. People were okay with playing fat turrets for months even though both fortresses and fat turrets don't care about maneuver dials.

So I fly Brobots. If you place them facing forwards with their sides flush against one another, they can do hard one turns into each other and not move. This is extremely useful for seeing what direction my opponent commits to.

Why don't more people do this? Not just with Brobots, but everything else in general.

Because most people actually want to play a good game.

Have you seen the HATE the fortressing gets? Although perfectly legal it carries such a stigma that some claim to rage quit if they see someone playing that way.

You do realize you're asking PGS, right?

Obviously I know that there is a stigma around it, but it's so useful and easy to do with Brobots I wonder why I don't see it more often. People were okay with playing fat turrets for months even though both fortresses and fat turrets don't care about maneuver dials*

*as much as some other lists.

Personally, I don't do it because I find it boring.

Because it is a bad strategy?

It's a bad strategy except in a narrow context. When it's useful, it's really useful, but mostly it's a detriment.

Not to mention the assatudiness of it all, which is known to leave a sour-play-experience behind for many actual STAR WARS FANS who are also into X-WING.

Sometimes I'll start with my ships sideways and do straight or a bank to open. One time in a store tournament a guy fortressed turn 1, so next turn I just did another straight. He fortressed again, so I said to hell with it and just K-turned everyone next round. This went on the whole game, resulted in a draw, which was fine with me because all I needed was a tie but he didn't realize he needed a win. He got some useful information that game: check the scoreboard in elimination rounds

Have you seen the HATE the fortressing gets? Although perfectly legal it carries such a stigma that some claim to rage quit if they see someone playing that way.

You do realize you're asking PGS, right?

Honestly I didn't give it a second thought. If I had, then the question may take a sarcastic tone although I see nothing wrong with using the tactic. I mean what's really the difference between fortressing a turn or even two if you can give up the actions and let your opponent come to you as opposed to the "slow roll" going forward at a minimum possible pace?

Sometimes I'll start with my ships sideways and do straight or a bank to open. One time in a store tournament a guy fortressed turn 1, so next turn I just did another straight. He fortressed again, so I said to hell with it and just K-turned everyone next round. This went on the whole game, resulted in a draw, which was fine with me because all I needed was a tie but he didn't realize he needed a win. He got some useful information that game: check the scoreboard in elimination rounds

A great example of why there should be intentional draws. You didn't want to engage and neither did he apparently so just call it a day instead of wasting everyone's time. If someone did want to act it's an example of a place I think a game should be given a "fast forward" that will cut all but X amount of time from the clock although determining X is where the challenge is.

During elimination rounds the scoreboard doesn't matter anymore as the draw goes to the player with initiative. In swiss I ALMOST feel sorry for him; it appears you knew you only needed the draw yet he failed to realize that wasn't enough for him.