1 minute ago, gennataos said:

Cessation of motion for a ship usually comes with a penalty.

That's not actually true. It can cause you to receive a stress token, but that is not inherently a penalty.

Also the Dev's have stated more then once they are fine with this tactic, so honestly the Intent is actually clear in this case, it's a legit tactic.

1 minute ago, nigeltastic said:

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.

Good point. Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely. When time is called, it comes down to a shootout of all players on the field. Team A cannot hang with Team B on the field, but they're exceptional when it comes to penalty shots. Their new plan is have the goalie hold the ball, then they have a great chance of winning when 90 minutes is up!

2 minutes 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?

I suggest you consult the laws of the game Law 12 specifically re: Unsporting conduct

"attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled" or "acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game."

2 minutes 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?

From what little I've seen of soccer at the professional level I under the impression that that sort of behavior was the response required by the rules of the game whenever a player from the opposing team comes within a foot of you.

http://www.upperdublinsoccerclub.org/docs/RECREATION/17_Rules/17 Rules of Soccer Soccer.pdf

I'm not very familiar with the rules of that sport but it seems to me as if that could be deemed a minor foul under Law12 in the document that I've linked.

Thematically, I hate fortressing. It's just... weird.

Game-wise, tactics... Heck no, I have no problem with it. It goes hand and hand with building a list with a specific tactic in mine to the point of being so specialized it has as likely a chance to fall apart as succeed.

Sportsmanship? Gee. My opponent played to his strength and I decided to move in anyway. Different game: Battletech, hey, those guys are staying in that defensive point and just waiting for us to roll up and die. Let's do it anyway! Sportsmanship to me here is whether or not my opponent is laughing and rubbing my nose in it when his tactics are killing my impatient and aggressive self into star dust.

2 minutes ago, TitaniumChopstick said:

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)

It also is a pain in the behind to police, very similar to many soft fortressing regulations.

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely.

Since they can't actually do that it is a really poor analogy.

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

Good point. Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely. When time is called, it comes down to a shootout of all players on the field. Team A cannot hang with Team B on the field, but they're exceptional when it comes to penalty shots. Their new plan is have the goalie hold the ball, then they have a great chance of winning when 90 minutes is up!

Too bad that isn't actually a thing though. Fortressing is closer to an American football analogy where the quarterback can hold the ball for as long as he wants. As long as his fortress holds, time counts down. Its literally up to the opponent to break through. Sorry this hurts your notion of fair play.

2 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Good point. Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely. When time is called, it comes down to a shootout of all players on the field. Team A cannot hang with Team B on the field, but they're exceptional when it comes to penalty shots. Their new plan is have the goalie hold the ball, then they have a great chance of winning when 90 minutes is up!

Entirely legit and a fault of the rules, not the players or their sportsmanship.

Then you change the rules. Keeping with soccer, the offside rule was introduced to stop cherry-picking.

A simple fix for castling is if you are already bumped, and the next maneuver would keep you in the same position, simply place your ship on he other side of the intervening ship's base. Treat the ship as if it had overlapped (no actions)

6 minutes ago, gennataos said:

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.

Landing on a debris field usually comes with a penalty.

If you put Collision Detector and Trick Shot on Keyan, it becomes a double reward at no cost to self.

The game is designed around avoiding obstacles wherever possible, or accepting the penalty when it is tactically favorable/impossible to avoid.

6 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

That's not actually true. It can cause you to receive a stress token, but that is not inherently a penalty.

Also the Dev's have stated more then once they are fine with this tactic, so honestly the Intent is actually clear in this case, it's a legit tactic.

I am going to guess that the Dev's are simply not interested in addressing the tactic since it is generally not going to win you games. If fortress lists became meta dominating their opinion would likely change rapidly.

6 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Good point. Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely. When time is called, it comes down to a shootout of all players on the field. Team A cannot hang with Team B on the field, but they're exceptional when it comes to penalty shots. Their new plan is have the goalie hold the ball, then they have a great chance of winning when 90 minutes is up!

If the players on the other team were allowed to attack the goalie and attempt to force a turnover or to force him into the goal while he is holding the ball, I would be all for it.

So the consensus is that fortressing is not a ding on the sportsmanship of the player. I'm okay with that.

For those who don't like it, then, it's a question of a hole in the rules?

Just now, Jetfire said:

I am going to guess that the Dev's are simply not interested in addressing the tactic since it is generally not going to win you games. If fortress lists became meta dominating their opinion would likely change rapidly.

If you play a list that depends on your opponent presenting themselves you need to be prepared for an opponent who won't. Literally the only way to prevent getting bombed by this list is to stay beyond r3.

3 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Good point. Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely. When time is called, it comes down to a shootout of all players on the field. Team A cannot hang with Team B on the field, but they're exceptional when it comes to penalty shots. Their new plan is have the goalie hold the ball, then they have a great chance of winning when 90 minutes is up!

I will certainly agree it's boring but I also think it's a fine tactical play. It also certainly has risks associated with it such as if the penalty kicks backfire on them they've been punished for their tactical choice.

I think fortressing is certainly an offender of "boy that's boring" but that's not really a reason to address it in game design since there are many things people could and do find boring. It's also definitely a gamble as to if it actually pays off in the end since one could just flub the final salvo.

If fortressing becomes common as a response to a certain build it's probably the build in question that needs to be looked at since it's causing the best tactic to beat it to be roll dice at the end of the game and determine the winner.

10 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Good point. Consider, then sticking with the soccer analogy, what if, in soccer, the goal could just hold on to the ball indefinitely. When time is called, it comes down to a shootout of all players on the field. Team A cannot hang with Team B on the field, but they're exceptional when it comes to penalty shots. Their new plan is have the goalie hold the ball, then they have a great chance of winning when 90 minutes is up!

I remember a couple of Chelsea games like felt like that.

/ba-dum-tsh

I agree. I also dislike boosting, evading, flying out of arc, spending focus, hiding behind asteroids, and really green dice in general.

All of these so called "tactics" are unsporting and exploit the fact that red dice might actually hit and rob me of my ability to damage an opponent.

These behaviors ruin gameplay and I demand that FFG address them immediately

But seriously, I get the annoyance. Running away from a fight, especially in a timed or turn limited environment is extremely frustrating to the opponent. 40k has suffered from "hit and done" exploits and I find playing out those matches pointless.

A good starting deployment can help mitigate castling and I find this game less seseptible than others to this approach

edit: i ninjad genn unintentionally with the last half of my post. Just FYI

2 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

I agree. I also dislike boosting, evading, flying out of arc, spending focus, hiding behind asteroids, and really green dice in general.

All of these so called "tactics" are unsporting and exploit the fact that red dice might actually hit and rob me of my ability to damage an opponent.

These behaviors ruin gameplay and I demand that FFG address them immediately

Hey man, you're welcome to read other topics of you don't have anything to contribute aside from snark.

For clarity, I made the thread mostly because it was asked to move the discussion out of the Regional thread. The other reason I made it is because if I sat across from a fortressing player, I'd pretty much just want to call it a game. Some people might feel the same about quad TLTs, Dengaroo, etc. That's cool, can't blame ya. Don't see why any of us who don't like fortressing can be blamed for wanting to see it go away.

Just now, Jetfire said:

If fortress lists became meta dominating their opinion would likely change rapidly.

Exactly, they've known about it for a couple years now and don't consider it game breaking, and as long as they don't think it's a problem they won't do anything to change it.

12 minutes ago, gennataos said:

So the consensus is that fortressing is not a ding on the sportsmanship of the player. I'm okay with that.

For those who don't like it, then, it's a question of a hole in the rules?

That's not my opinion. I think it is poor sportsmanship.

2 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Don't see why any of us who don't like fortressing can be blamed for wanting to see it go away.

Because you're trying to remove a valid tactic some people make use of. It's no different then trying to remove TLT's or Bombs, or any other mechanic from the game. Plus there's always the issue of unintended consequences. What you do to fix it may actually make things worse.

As long as the Dev's think it's fine then it's just something people need to learn how to beat, that or refuse to play with people who use it.

1 minute ago, BlodVargarna said:

That's not my opinion. I think it is poor sportsmanship.

I'm not sure where I land on it. To say I wouldn't hold it against an opposing player who did that to me would probably be a lie. That's probably piss me off. But people make a good argument...if they saw my list and knew a fortress was their only shot at winning, does that make them a bad guy?

8 minutes ago, gennataos said:

For clarity, I made the thread mostly because it was asked to move the discussion out of the Regional thread. The other reason I made it is because if I sat across from a fortressing player, I'd pretty much just want to call it a game. Some people might feel the same about quad TLTs, Dengaroo, etc. That's cool, can't blame ya. Don't see why any of us who don't like fortressing can be blamed for wanting to see it go away.

Fortressing will probably stay a tactic that is used against certain match-ups for a given squad. A squad that is built around the tactic of Fortressing is likely to have a bad time whenever it needs to face a squad with a power alpha strike or high levels of damage mitigation. That should keep it from becoming a popular strategy when list building.

A squad like Bombing K-Wings is probably going to inspire a lot of fortressing because they do a lot of damage if you try to engage them in a more traditional fashion and they have low enough damage mitigation that you are likely to do well trading shots with them even if you aren't getting actions.