13 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Playing devil's advocate here:

How exactly would one outmaneuver lower PS ships that get two maneuvers and an action and know exactly where your ship will before before it gets an opportunity to move? Shouldn't the Advanced SLAM K-Wing with Bombs be as much of an anathema to someone that feels like fortressing is against the spirit of the game?

Set them up for a bomb drop, then fly away from it. Their bombs aren't infinite, despite how it may feel. Once their bombs are depleted, what do they have?

4 hours 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.

Not strictly accurate. They said that it was a Negative Play Experience (the use of the term on the forums sprung from its use by Alex Davy at Wave 4 Worlds) and that they'd keep an eye on it but they weren't worried. When considering how to deal with Fortressing they had to weigh up the negative impact of fortressing with the side effects of a rules change targeting it. Their conclusion was that Fortressing was so ineffective that it didn't warrant a change. It was a strategy that'd piss off your opponent but wasn't going to win you a tournament.

You'll beat an unprepared opponent but as soon as they work it out you're done. It's not a strategy that'll take you far.

Just now, gennataos said:

Set them up for a bomb drop, then fly away from it. Their bombs aren't infinite, despite how it may feel. Once their bombs are depleted, what do they have?

I mean a list with 2 kwings can have 8 bombs in it, 4 of which ionize you and block actions ensuring the follow-up bomb does damage. Hard to fly away from an opponent who can take 4 maneuvers in the same period in which you take 1 and an ion move.

Until tournaments start being won regularly by lists that are fortressing all the time, I don't see this as a problem.

It's limited use tactic, that currently is semi-viable against maybe one type of list. That's not a threat to the game. It might be boring to play against -- I find quad TLTs boring to play against --- but it's still a legitimate tactic.

I've got a double-Falcon fortress troll list that has been enabled by recent releases. It might be a good joke to fly once, but it isn't going to be competitive so there's really no point in trying to ban it in my opinion.

Short version, until fortressing becomes competitively viable rather than completely reliant on opponent unfamiliarity the designers will leave it be.

If it ever does become truly viable then the designers will likely FAQ it to death. The gun's been loaded since Wave 4 and as soon as they think it's worth the collateral damage they'll fire it.

4 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

I mean a list with 2 kwings can have 8 bombs in it, 4 of which ionize you and block actions ensuring the follow-up bomb does damage. Hard to fly away from an opponent who can take 4 maneuvers in the same period in which you take 1 and an ion move.

Plenty of people seem to be able to do it.

4 hours 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.

That's why my fortress list I built (but never actually flown) uses 3 YV-666 so there IS no arc you can approach that I can't shoot. you can at least approach from one side and try to get one ship in rnage 3 while the others are out of range.

1 hour ago, DeathstarII said:

Why did you get 3 lambdas before the upsilon was released?

It was the only way to get Advanced Sensors back when a Blue Squad with Advanced Sensors was a hell of a way to spend 25 points.

11 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

It was the only way to get Advanced Sensors back when a Blue Squad with Advanced Sensors was a hell of a way to spend 25 points.

Such a fun ship, too. The loss of its viability is one of X-Wings greatest tragedies.

2 hours ago, WWHSD said:

It was the only way to get Advanced Sensors back when a Blue Squad with Advanced Sensors was a hell of a way to spend 25 points.

Ah, okay, I didn't join the game until wave 8, so I didn't know about that

11 hours ago, gennataos said:

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.

I mainly come to refute the idea that there's anything wrong with fortressing. It's a good counter-tactic to a one trick pony.

I'm glad there's a linear solution to a one-dimensional list, like triple K-Wings. Triple K-Wings players are fine playing an unorthodox strategy so they shouldn't get butt hurt when an unorthodox solution is presented to them.

Isn't it ironic that the prize they are gunning for is a new set of maneuver templates?

Just as it can be argued that fortressing is against the spirit of the game, it can also be argued that triple K-wings are against the spirit of the game. In a game that's about maneuvering and shooting your opponent, triple k-wings are a list that deliberately tries to ignore the whole shooting part and just drop auto-damage bombs on you, bypassing a core game mechanic (red dice vs. green dice).

PS: Personally I don't think any of those is against the spirit of the game, just trying to point out that it's all pretty subjective. Also, I don't really get why, in a game about moving AND shooting, winning by not moving is looked down upon, but winning by not shooting isn't.

What is unsportsmanlike is complaining about Fortressing and just trying to imply that using a perfectly legal strategy is unsportsmanlike. If you think fortressing is unsportsmanlike then do you also think a "strategic withdrawal" is unsportsmanlike? It's pretty much as far away from a Fortress as you can get but just because you don't like to face it doesn't mean it isn't perfectly valid.

Uuuu i see someone has no idea how to deal with something like this and starts a sh...storm...

Seriously guys if that list is not supposed to be countered by fortressing (like mentioned K-wings) i see no way how you can loose such a match. Hell yea its gonna be boring, but hell it requires you to think different about your vector of approach. And then if you execute it right you usually got your whole list with actions vs only some part of enemy list WITHOUT actions.

Even mentioned 3xYV - cool you have me in 2 arcs. With no mods (right approach gives no k4 to them). Sooo that should get maybe 4 hits. At range 3 possibly. And i shoot with whole list. With mods. At AG1 ship. Come on....

K-wing hurt feel I.

7 minutes ago, Vitalis said:

Uuuu i see someone has no idea how to deal with something like this and starts a sh...storm...

Seriously guys if that list is not supposed to be countered by fortressing (like mentioned K-wings) i see no way how you can loose such a match. Hell yea its gonna be boring, but hell it requires you to think different about your vector of approach. And then if you execute it right you usually got your whole list with actions vs only some part of enemy list WITHOUT actions.

Even mentioned 3xYV - cool you have me in 2 arcs. With no mods (right approach gives no k4 to them). Sooo that should get maybe 4 hits. At range 3 possibly. And i shoot with whole list. With mods. At AG1 ship. Come on....

K-wing hurt feel I.

I actually switche dup my triple YV list to use dengar instead of K4, now it always gets at least 1 reroll :P. Also thought about dropping the outlaw tech and losing the modification on the stopping ship to get zuckuss and 4lom on bossk for a full party bus...

Just now, VanderLegion said:

I actually switche dup my triple YV list to use dengar instead of K4, now it always gets at least 1 reroll :P. Also thought about dropping the outlaw tech and losing the modification on the stopping ship to get zuckuss and 4lom on bossk for a full party bus...

Yea that makes it a bit more scary but that was just an example not the point Well your list is designet to fortress - cool, enemy CAN still fly around that. I don't see a problem. You want to employ such a tactic? Fine by me - your call with all its drawbacks and advantages. Where is the sh@#storm material here?

STAY.N AT HOME... OKAY'N AT HOME... AND OH WHAT A GADDAM JOY IT IS... TOOT-TOOT!

THE REST OF YOU... ENJOY YOUR UP-TO-THE-SECOND-META.

17 hours 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?

That's called diving and is either rewarded with a penalty or penalised with a red card.

Now if you were to say Capello's Milan or Mourinho's Chelsea parking the bus, or the multitude of smaller clubs who play for a draw at home (I'm looking at you Stoke, especially on a cold and rainy day) then it's probably similar to what we're discussing.

20 hours 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 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.

Agreed. It is completely acceptable for someone's goal at a competitive event to simply be to win within the rules of the game.

And completely acceptable to discuss if those rules should be changed.

Much like we did with IDs last year, and the rules were changed for the better. When people like you were saying things like that.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

And completely acceptable to ask if those rules should be changed.

This.

Focusing on whether castling is "dishonorable" or "bad sportsmanship" makes the argument moral, and it's a bad argument.

Arguing whether it's simply bad for the game (either strategically, or a negative play experience) is a far better argument.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

This.

Focusing on whether castling is "dishonorable" or "bad sportsmanship" makes the argument moral, and it's a bad argument.

Arguing whether it's simply bad for the game (either strategically, or a negative play experience) is a far better argument.

Maybe, I think that's mostly just semantics though.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

And completely acceptable to discuss if those rules should be changed.

Much like we did with IDs last year, and the rules were changed for the better. When people like you were saying things like that.

Right, but with a high ps ace list, this is one of the very few strategies that can win. a good kwing bomber player will almost always beat a high ps ace list. You have to admit that at least.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

Maybe, I think that's mostly just semantics though.

I don't see how it is:

in the first case, you're impugning a player's character, despite something being within the rules. You're actually judging someone for playing differently than you (it's really not different than judging someone for playing dengaroo, triple scouts, or bombs because *you* don't like those lists and find them unfun)

In the second, you're arguing that the overall system is unfair or unfun, and asking the game designers to address it. You're not inherently saying the players are bad or dishonorable, because they can play whatever they want; but instead arguing that that type of play is unhealthy for the game as a whole, EVEN IF some people derive enjoyment from it, because it diminishes the enjoyment of so many others.


For the record, while I find castling unfun, I don't think it's arisen to the level of needing a game change. People are doing it because of the likewise unfun play experience of some type of lists, usually bomb lists. So, for them to change bumping mechanics as a whole, they should also address the underlying reason people are doing it to begin with.

I've said this before - I don't think people are coming to tournaments going "Yay! I'm going to castle all day! This is FUN!" - I think they're doing it as a strategic response to certain kinds of lists that have grown in popularity in the meta