Since it was requested we stop "polluting" the Regional thread, I'll start this one. I'd start off by suggesting the choice of the word "polluting" is unnecessarily condescending. Clutter, maybe that's close to a better choice.

I think fortressing is silly, unsportsman-like and outside of the spirit of the game. I honestly don't get why people want to win THAT bad. I mean...for bit of acrylic, alt art cards and mats? Really? Is there even prize money involved in something like a regional? I don't get why people would play like a **** for fancy versions of stuff they already own. Is the prestige and/or eBay resale value really worth playing like a ****?

"From my perspective the Jedi are evil."

Some people believe you can only have fun if you win. And the journey to winning means nothing, only the end result.

I would present the converse position: fortressing is an emergent tactic from the complexities of the game. It offers advantages (chiefly, forcing your opponent to commit to a certain avenue of attack) in exchange for disadvantages (predictability, lack of actions, allowing your opponent to choose how and when to engage), like any other tactic. It also typically biases your list in some fashion in a way which if and when your fortress breaks, makes it harder to win in the open field.

I don't see it as a problem for the game, I see it as a puzzle to be solved, again, like any other tactic.

I find it a lot less obnoxious that red-dice power creep and k wings.

And even if it is a problem, I've yet to see a solution suggested that is elegant and doesn't also wreck the way bumping is handled in active furballing play.

Well, if the kwings want to slam around and dump bombs on ships why should you be compelled to play into that plan?

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I find it a lot less obnoxious that red-dice power creep and k wings.

Like this but different (insert Dash/defensive token stacking etc instead), of all the NPE in the game this doesn't rank that highly for me. It's just a way for a rock to attempt to deal with a paper.

They play that way because some lists have an impossibly hard time winning against triple Ks. If such a strategy existed against Dengaroo or Palpatine/x7/both lists, it would also be used, because people don't want to lose to things they can't beat. Losing that way is just as bad an experience as getting fortressed in my opinion.

This is a deathmatch game. Put yourself in the pilot seat of these ships. If you were going to die you would do any and everything in your power to prevent that.

3 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Like this but different, of all the NPE in the game this doesn't rank that highly for me. It's just a way for a rock to attempt to deal with a paper.

Rock wouldn't need a way to attempt to deal with paper if paper hadn't been overpowered in the first place. Better to corral ace builds by fixing palp, manaroo and /x7 than by adding new mechanics which make the game exceptionally hard to play unless in certain contexts unless you happen to be able to practice routinely against that kind of list.

Specifically k-wing bombers - they're inordinately hard for me, because no-one local to me plays them, so I've had almost no experience flying against them when they're well-flown - which tends to result in games against them being short and boring for me, because I just get bombed to death, no save, no nothing, git gud or go home. They're SUCH a different playstyle to the rest of the game that if you don't get the chance to fly against them often, and come against them at high level, you're stuffed.

E: Miranda in particular is probably the least fun ship in the game for me. She has only one meaningful weakness - low defence dice. Everything else she can do - funcitonally 3-die PWT, bombs, arc dodging, TLTs, missiles, regen, unlimited-range support, etc etc etc. I mean, at least Y wing TLTs have a donut hole.

2 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

They play that way because some lists have an impossibly hard time winning against triple Ks. If such a strategy existed against Dengaroo or Palpatine/x7/both lists, it would also be used, because people don't want to lose to things they can't beat. Losing that way is just as bad an experience as getting fortressed in my opinion.

I get why they do it, the question is should it even be possible in the first place?

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

I get why they do it, the question is should it even be possible in the first place?

From a game balance perspective, why should it not?

From a fluff perspective (bearing in mind that x wing is in space primarily, and even if not, Star Wars ships all have repulsor lifts to hover with), why should it not?

Fortressing leaves out the key aspect of the game which is manouvring.

It doesn't use silly upgrades, overpowered combos, lucky dice nor has any outplay involved. You just place your ship and it's done. If that isn't a problem for the game I think nothing will ever be.

By fortressing (and I should be clear, I'm not talking about taking 1 or 2 turns of bumping before committing into the fray, I'm talking about staying put and be content with forcing the game to final salvo) you are no playing xwing anymore.

I don't blame players for choosing to fortressing when it clearly advantege them. It's not their fault if fortressing is allowed. I'm blaming all the players who doesn't see it a big issue that should be removed to the game before it does more damage.

Also, against quad TLT I'm not particularly inclined to chase them around the board if my list will get demolished. I'll happily wait for them to get close in on me before engaging or I'll simply let the match go to final salvo.

2 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Fortressing leaves out the key aspect of the game which is manouvring.

So do turrets and particularly PWTs. Have range? Have shot.

I think my real question is what part of fortressing is so upsetting to people? The arguments against it I see are always these somewhat fragile 'not in the spirit of the game' arguments but that's sort of malarkey because the 'spirit of the game' is pretty subjective. For some people flying non-canon lists or things that aren't fluff supported is against the spirit. For some people primary weapon turrets is against the spirit. For some people playing the '100/6' game mode is against the spirit.

What is it about fortressing that is bad as explained without a subjective argument of "it rubs me the wrong way, I don't like it"?

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

From a game balance perspective, why should it not?

From a fluff perspective (bearing in mind that x wing is in space primarily, and even if not, Star Wars ships all have repulsor lifts to hover with), why should it not?

If all ships could stop, via repulsor lifts or whatever, then it should be a mechanic in the game. Then sitting in place is no longer against the spirit of the game, but it's actually IN the game.

1 minute ago, TitaniumChopstick said:

Also, against quad TLT I'm not particularly inclined to chase them around the board if my list will get demolished. I'll happily wait for them to get close in on me before engaging or I'll simply let the match go to final salvo.

But you still have to fly, then. I'm okay with that...well, except the final salvo is a silly, arbitrary way to decide a game.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

So do turrets and particularly PWTs. Have range? Have shot.

That's stretching what I said more than a fair bit.

I'm not fond of 3 red dice PWT either, I actually think they are a bad game design from which it seems FFG has long stirred from. But I can't see a comparison between them them and fortressing. At the very least PWT still needs to not land on a rock

I really hate when sportsmanship gets tossed around in a discussion regarding tactics in a competitive game. If you want to discuss sportsmanship it should focus on adhering to the rules of the game, treatment of opponents, accepting rulings from officials, etc. Sportsmanship shouldn't be a reason to create some meta-ruleset about which completely legitimate and legal tactics are approved for gentlemanly play and which are not.

Some lists have no answer to Triple k-wings except fortressing. I'm just glad fortressing is in the game or else Triple K-Wings would be the equivalent of Trip Jumps and completely eliminate a faction.

1 minute ago, WWHSD said:

I really hate when sportsmanship gets tossed around in a discussion regarding tactics in a competitive game. If you want to discuss sportsmanship it should focus on adhering to he rules of the game, being treatment of opponents, accepting rulings from TOs, etc. Sportsmanship shouldn't be a reason to create some meta-ruleset about which completely legitimate and legal tactics are approved for gentlemanly play.

It's within the rules of the game for a soccer player to fall to the ground, acting like his knee exploded on the slightest bit of contact in an effort to draw a foul. Is it sporting, though?

Just now, WWHSD said:

I really hate when sportsmanship gets tossed around in a discussion regarding tactics in a competitive game. If you want to discuss sportsmanship it should focus on adhering to he rules of the game, being treatment of opponents, accepting rulings from TOs, etc. Sportsmanship shouldn't be a reason to create some meta-ruleset about which completely legitimate and legal tactics are approved for gentlemanly play.

As I said, it's not about using a legitimate tactic. I get why people do fortress (heck, I think I would fortress to if by fortressing I have more than a good chance to win a SoS or such), I don't blame them.

What I'm trying to say is: is it really fine that fortressing stays as a legitimate tactic? I don't think so. If we stop moving ships around what are we actually playing?

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

It's within the rules of the game for a soccer player to fall to the ground, acting like his knee exploded on the slightest bit of contact in an effort to draw a foul. Is it sporting, though?

Methinks that is covered under 'treatment of opponent'. An analogy to what you've described is someone who calls a TO claiming a player cheated if they jostle a ship a bit accidentally. In that case, no it's not sporting because they treat their opponent poorly.

1 minute ago, Sunitsa said:

What I'm trying to say is: is it really fine that fortressing stays as a legitimate tactic? I don't think so. If we stop moving ships around what are we actually playing?

This. The game is designed around perpetual motion. Cessation of motion for a ship usually comes with a penalty. In the case of fortressing, it comes with a reward.

2 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I really hate when sportsmanship gets tossed around in a discussion regarding tactics in a competitive game.

Yes, tactics in the game itself is seldom going to be an issue of sportsmanship, unless they involve cheating in some way. Tactics outside of the game, those can very much be a sportsmanship issue. Such as pestering the other person constantly to hurry up or something that causes them to make mistakes. Calling them names during or after the match is again a matter of sportsmanship.

But if your argument involves "spirit of the game" quite frankly you've lost the argument because you're trying to make an argument based on subjective opinion, and not an opinion that everyone shares.

Just now, gennataos said:

It's within the rules of the game for a soccer player to fall to the ground, acting like his knee exploded on the slightest bit of contact in an effort to draw a foul. Is it sporting, though?

No, in fact that is not legal. It is called simulation and can warrant a yellow card if the referee so chooses to give one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_(association_football)