By the by... I think FFG does have a problem with castling. Both the Solo Falcon and the Upsilon have mechanics that help mitigate castling by letting you get quite a bit upfield and a captured tie has some protection too (not so much in bombs... But then use your own bombs to defend)

plus in three turns most of the agile aces in the game can be putting fire anywhere on the board. If you're running slow large ships and you get castled/alpha'd into a loss, that was a risk you took with that list.

2 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

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.

That's an interesting point in that I wonder if a lot of people post on here in the hopes that the devs read these forums and maybe voicing their dissatisfaction could lead to change....for whatever they don't like. Or maybe it just trickles down...player A, B, C and D read the forums, chats with the devs at some event, with the devs appreciating the opinion of those players.

Fortressing is fine! I am so sick of all these threads complaining how 'this ' or 'that' is broken/unfair. This is like the complaint against people who bump to prevent shots or run away after killing a ship to avoid the risk of getting killed back. Utterly ridiculous. No one owes you opportunities and FFG shouldn't have to "fix" every problem you can't solve.

Generally the fortresses offer lanes where fewer of the ships can shoot or none of the ships can shoot and Sable had a chance to use one of these lanes to shoot it out and force his opponent out of the fortress. If you have a list with more firepower than 3 K-wings, you can often bust these fortresses on weak points or force them out of their fortress.

Not using the tools the game offers is not your opponent's problem.

Just now, AceWing said:

Fortressing is fine! I am so sick of all these threads complaining how 'this ' or 'that' is broken/unfair. This is like the complaint against people who bump to prevent shots or run away after killing a ship to avoid the risk of getting killed back. Utterly ridiculous. No one owes you opportunities and FFG shouldn't have to "fix" every problem you can't solve.

I'm not sure why you decided to read a thread wherein the title clearly stated it was a topic you are sick of. I'd suggest you just skip of such threads, save yourself the frustration.

Just now, gennataos said:

That's an interesting point in that I wonder if a lot of people post on here in the hopes that the devs read these forums and maybe voicing their dissatisfaction could lead to change....for whatever they don't like. Or maybe it just trickles down...player A, B, C and D read the forums, chats with the devs at some event, with the devs appreciating the opinion of those players.

I think the devs are aware of the distaste many players have for Fortressing as a tactic. There was a huge **** storm over it after Richard Hsu used the tactic in a match in the single elimination rounds of Worlds 2014 (I think that's the right year). The devs responded that they were aware of the tactic and didn't feel that it was a problem but that they would keep an eye on it if it evolved into one.

Like I always say, I am in no way compelled to fly my list in a way that makes it easy for you to shoot me.

Oh sure, I do so by accident all the time, but I'm not forced to...

4 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I think the devs are aware of the distaste many players have for Fortressing as a tactic. There was a huge **** storm over it after Richard Hsu used the tactic in a match in the single elimination rounds of Worlds 2014 (I think that's the right year). The devs responded that they were aware of the tactic and didn't feel that it was a problem but that they would keep an eye on it if it evolved into one.

I'd guess any time something comes which looks like it clearly led to victory (Zuckuss/Dengaroo at Worlds), people put up a stink. It makes sense, people see stuff they think is broken, they want it "fixed". I don't think there's anything wrong with conversation about such things, whether I agree with the complaint or not.

I honestly think this is just a problem of perception. People tell themselves that it’s an abuse of rules or exploitation, because in their minds, these ships should be dogfighting and dogfighting only. They want theme to be king and for the rules to actively enforce the flavor of the game in the way that tastes best to them.

So like, let’s talk about theme.

Let’s say that you’re out in space and you’re squad leader. You’re sitting in the cockpit and you’re the man who calls the shots for your squad of space aces. Your enemies are at **** near a dead stop (however it is that Star Wars ships achieve that) and cowering from you along the edge of a contested area. Your goal is to turn them into space dust because that’s what a big, bad, space ace like you does. What’s your plan for that?

Is your plan to boo and jeer them over the com system? “Hey, you lame jerks! Where’s your honour?! Come fight us! Why you hiding?! I got some pew pew for ya!” Eventually, you run out of patience, get half your fleet blown up, then end up at a bar on Tattooine, crying to the bartender about how you don’t like foes who refuse to fight you and your squad mates with honour because it’s not how you feel space fighting should go? Is that what you do? Is that the narrative you tell yourself?

You’re a squad leader out in space and your enemies are doing something you’re not a big fan of. Figure out how you’re going to punish them and get the space explosions you want. The fact that you don’t like that their ships have the ability to come to a stop in space doesn’t seem to be preventing them from doing it, does it? So teach them that stopping in space isn’t a thing that’s going to prevent them from exploding, ‘cause that’s where your satisfaction is going to come from. That’s something you can actively work towards and achieve, and it’d feel ten times more satisfying than if FFG just came in here and banned that tactic for you.

If the problem you’re having is one of perception, challenge your current perceptions. Don’t demand that the game be modified to fit your existing perceptions. Or, if you choose to demand that the game be modified to fit your existing perceptions, try not to question the integrity of your fellow players who perceive things differently. As long as your opponents are treating you with respect and acting in accordance with the rules, their sportsmanship doesn’t need to be called into question.

I guess the key to a discussion over hot-button issues to actually remain open-minded. Don't just present your argument then try to do everything you can to make that argument have merit. Listen to the counters, consider them, don't just try to debunk them. I've been turned around on the sportsmanship aspect of fortressing, although I doubt I'd have an easy time telling an opponent "good game" at the end. Maybe just "that was a game" would do.

To me, castling is the new response to the tie breaker. When FFG eliminated the draw, it got rid of intentional draws (which everyone seemed happy about). Their fix was final salvo, and castling is a direct result of that.

It is now a valid tactic within the context of the rules. You can Rules of Fantalier all you want, but in a truely competitive environment you should expect your opponent to do everything within the rules to win, up until the rules are changed.

21 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

Generally the fortresses offer lanes where fewer of the ships can shoot or none of the ships can shoot and Sable had a chance to use one of these lanes to shoot it out and force his opponent out of the fortress. If you have a list with more firepower than 3 K-wings, you can often bust these fortresses on weak points or force them out of their fortress.

Not using the tools the game offers is not your opponent's problem.

I take an especially negative view of fortressing complaints when those firing lanes exist and are not used.

You're playing a Star Wars game, your opponent deploys a seemingly impregnable fortress that can be destroyed if you fly down a narrow chasm, and you fail to take advantage or even just appreciate the beauty of the scenario? Turn over your collection and GET OUT.

Just now, AEIllingworth said:

To me, castling is the new response to the tie breaker. When FFG eliminated the draw, it got rid of intentional draws (which everyone seemed happy about). Their fix was final salvo, and castling is a direct result of that.

It is now a valid tactic within the context of the rules. You can Rules of Fantalier all you want, but in a truely competitive environment you should expect your opponent to do everything within the rules to win, up until the rules are changed.

So...does final salvo make sense?

Just now, gennataos said:

So...does final salvo make sense?

TBH I hate Final salvo. I wish we had moved to a win-minor win-tie-minor loss- loss point system so that you would be encouraged to fight out games instead of castling or running for 70 minutes after you got half points on a huge ship. But since they went final salvo, those techniques are perfectly legitimate.

1 minute ago, AEIllingworth said:

To me, castling is the new response to the tie breaker. When FFG eliminated the draw, it got rid of intentional draws (which everyone seemed happy about). Their fix was final salvo, and castling is a direct result of that.

I'm not sure about the effect of that rule change. It may increase the use of the tactic in swiss rounds but I think it would make it less likely to be used in elimination rounds. In the previous rules, there were no ties permitted in elimination rounds and the winner was decided by initiative if the match would have been a tie. A player with initiative that could fortress and force the other player to either accept a loss or try to assault the fortress. The current rules turn this into a dice off.

16 minutes ago, AEIllingworth said:

To me, castling is the new response to the tie breaker. When FFG eliminated the draw, it got rid of intentional draws (which everyone seemed happy about). Their fix was final salvo, and castling is a direct result of that.

It is now a valid tactic within the context of the rules. You can Rules of Fantalier all you want, but in a truely competitive environment you should expect your opponent to do everything within the rules to win, up until the rules are changed.

Ignore this. Misread post. Carry on with your regularly scheduled discussion. ?

1 minute ago, Nhoj4 said:

Fortressing existed before final salvo or ID's. It is not a result of either of those.

Also saying everyone was happy about ID's? That was just simply not the case. There was a HUGE outcry against them on the forums and podcasts. So much so that FFG took another look and came up with our current system which is exceedingly better for a game like X-Wing than ID's or ties.

I think that you read his post wrong about IDs

2 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

I take an especially negative view of fortressing complaints when those firing lanes exist and are not used.

You're playing a Star Wars game, your opponent deploys a seemingly impregnable fortress that can be destroyed if you fly down a narrow chasm, and you fail to take advantage or even just appreciate the beauty of the scenario? Turn over your collection and GET OUT.

Do the Death Star trench run people! I'd enjoy trying to get into the narrow space and imagine my pilots coordinating their assault over the comms

"I'm hit!"
"get out of here, there's nothing more you can do to help"
*damaged friendly ship flees the battle from my misjudgement of a manuever's distance*

3 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I think that you read his post wrong about IDs

I did. My mistake. Edited my original post.

Well, one thing of note: if the devs didnt care about fortressing then i imagine Armada wouldnt have both ships take damage if they bump to prevent it in that game. Theres too many things in this game now that impact bumping to suddenly make both ships take damage to stop it, they probably havnt changed it because how could you without utterly breaking a ton of abilities? You have to either have a TO just decide someone is fortressing and DQ them or find some weird and probably uber wordy way to describe it in the rules and NOT shaft something else unintentionally.

Case in point: if you describe it as "When a friendly ship bumps another friendly ship and doesnt move for more than 1 turn in a row, insert bad things here" then you could accidentally provoke that rule in the game. Ive had several moshpit fights where some of us didnt move for 2-3 turns because we COULDNT move.

So fortressing,

Is it legal? Yes, it is.

Is it gamey and theme breaking? Yes, it is.

Is it unsportsmanlike? No, it is not cheating nor is it using an unfair exploit.

I remember back in the Wave 5-7 days people were complaining about "slow play" however there was a bit of a mislabeling of that term (which funny enough mislabeling seems to proliferate through every aspect of our days now thanks to politics). What they were calling "slow play" was a point fortress YT or Deci that had more than 60 of the points inside it which would pick off a weaker small ship or two then fly around the board until time and win off of MOV. There was no delay of placing dials or rolling dice, it was defensive play which wasn't Slow Play.

The point I am trying to make is Not Everyone is Going to Play X-wing the way you want it to be played. You like arc dodging, you are going to run into turrets. You want thematic list like the movies with X-wings Y-wings TIE-Fighters and TIE-Interceptors, you will encounter net-lists like Dengaroo, 3K, and Palp-Defenders. Fortressing is the same thing.

Calling it unsportsmanship is directing anger at the wrong people. They play by the rules, they don't make them. If you want to get mad, get mad at the devs. They should have seen this coming with inspiring recruit, and other things that let them take actions even when overlapping. Fortunatly there are ways to counter it. You can put Zeb<crew> in a B-wing or VCX and just start drilling away at it. Or you could even take the literal battering ram approach with Oicunn and just smash your way into it. Maybe if FFG gets their act together they could come up with an errata that prevents fortressing or give stiffer penalties besides losing your action which can be negated through upgrades and pilot abilities. Either way, hate the game, not the players.

11 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

your opponent deploys a seemingly impregnable fortress that can be destroyed if you fly down a narrow chasm, and you fail to take advantage or even just appreciate the beauty of the scenario?

12 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Well, one thing of note: if the devs didnt care about fortressing then i imagine Armada wouldnt have both ships take damage if they bump to prevent it in that game.

That's a different Dev team and not proof of anything really... Especially when talking about a whole different game. But again we do have their statement from some time ago saying that they didn't think it was a problem and if they change their mind they'll do something about it.

Also in Armada you can actually park a ship with in the rules. You suffer a few consequences for it, but it's a completely valid tactic for some builds.

11 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Well, one thing of note: if the devs didnt care about fortressing then i imagine Armada wouldnt have both ships take damage if they bump to prevent it in that game.

Eh I think trying to pull x-wing design thoughts out of armada may be barking up the wrong tree. The games are entirely different in every aspect except star wars theme and manufacturer. Movement, dice, scale, turn limit, scenario play, attack sections, base design, everything. There's honestly much more that's different than the same and given the scale and objectives of the two games it seems futile to compare them.

As I have stated elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with fortressing/castling. It is a tactic, nothing more. It shows up exactly twice in a regional final to counter a list which has few hard counter and suddenly everybody gets unglued. This is the same community that is complaining that power creep and how the game is moving away from movement based tactics. Further, it is clear with the latest Wave that FFG is trying to put more focus on initial board set-up (so-called Turn 0).

And now we want to complain about this?

I have been flying Bombing K-wings for over a year...with much less success than Sable Gryphon and others...and I watched both of the matches in question. As I have stated elsewhere, I think Sable's initial approach was off which hurt him early, but what really hurt him was half-way through when he had one of the G1-A's dead to rights and his dice crapped out twice in a row. It was not poor flying, on either part. It was certainly not the fault of fortressing because the G1-A's would have had even more of a difficult time without it. It was a matter of the player looking accross the table and choosing a good tactic. Nothing else.

As far as the other match with the Shadowcaster and Boba, the K-wing pilot simply blew it in my opinion. I hate to criticize as they are playing at a very high level and had a long day at that point, but the approach was terrible in my opinion. He could have taken Boba out with bombs if he had approached correctly. He stood a good chance to loose one of the K-wings in doing so, but he would still have had two left to engage the Shadowcaster. Not easy, but winnable.,

Just my opinion, but I sincerely hope FFG does NOTHING unless they somehow unleash an expansion that makes fortressing an impossible task.