1 minute ago, Luke C said:

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.

Well I would first of all say that I think it's bad for the game that bombs are as good as they are, which I've said elsewhere. I think most of the things released in 2016 were and mistake and I'd add a lot of the ordnance buffs to that list, along with all the defensive dice modification that has driven people to playing unpreventable damage bombs as their only way to actually deal damage to top tier ships.

But if you take all that as a given then I'd still rather see the aces player come up with a different attempted solution than fortressing, even though I'm sure it's worse. Having worked as a marketing writer for games companies there's little worse than having your game showcased to potential customers by people refusing to play your game, which is what fortressing is.


As an "I told you so": about two weeks ago there was a thread about that banned list to create a new format and my list to ban/points increase included Extra Munitions. At the time everyone was like "what the hell is wrong with extra munitions, it's the only thing making bombs viable?". Well... now you know a bit better what's wrong with making bombs viable. Nothing says you've ****** up the entire balance of your combat system like people winning by circumventing it entirely.

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

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)

Fair.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

Well I would first of all say that I think it's bad for the game that bombs are as good as they are, which I've said elsewhere. I think most of the things released in 2016 were and mistake and I'd add a lot of the ordnance buffs to that list, along with all the defensive dice modification that has driven people to playing unpreventable damage bombs as their only way to actually deal damage to top tier ships.

But if you take all that as a given then I'd still rather see the aces player come up with a different attempted solution than fortressing, even though I'm sure it's worse. Having worked as a marketing writer for games companies there's little worse than having your game showcased to potential customers by people refusing to play your game, which is what fortressing is.


As an "I told you so": about two weeks ago there was a thread about that banned list to create a new format and my list to ban/points increase included Extra Munitions. At the time everyone was like "what the hell is wrong with extra munitions, it's the only thing making bombs viable?". Well... now you know a bit better what's wrong with making bombs viable. Nothing says you've ****** up the entire balance of your combat system like people winning by circumventing it entirely.

OMG, Dengaroo is broken, bombs are broken, fortressing is broken, acewing is broken. QQ more please. Your tears please me.

Dengaroo isn't remotely broken, I'm frankly amazed it's done as well as it has because it's eminently beatable. At least now it's finally being exposed as second rate. Zuckuss is a poor mechanic, though, which demonstrates a terrifying misunderstanding of how X-Wing works on the part of the designers.

Bombs aren't broken but they ARE a poor mechanic that has been pushed to the forefront by their ability to counter even worse mechanics.

Fortressing isn't broken but it's a poor way for a company to market their game to potential new players, which is a prime objective of Organised Play.

I'm not even sure what Acewing is. Maybe it's broken?

I think we need to take a step back and look at the game at a macro level. We all sure want to win, but most of all I think we would like to play a game that is popular, so we have other people to play with, as well one that is exciting, so we feel like playing it. It's as simple as that. If a game gets dull, uinteresting or frustrating, people will start quitting and newcomers won't show up to replace them. For that matter we too will probably move on to something else.

By that standard, fortressing and triple k-wings (as well as several other things) are both a problem because they make many important mechanics and concepts of the game irrelevant. However, fortressing is by far the worse offender. Flying bomber K-wings at least does require very good maneuvering skills and planning (so does flying against them for that matter). On the other hand I cannot imagine a duller and less interesting game than the one where one of the players just sits in a corner for 75 minutes. That reason alone is enough for me to believe that fortressing needs to go away if the game is to stay remotely healthy.

As for bombs: I said it before and I'm gonna say it again - bombs are fine. It's the Sabine that is the problem. Without her bombs would be used as they were meant to be - as auxiliary tools to be used in certain situations or against certain enemies. With her they can just kill everything and that's... not good. Since fixing Sabine is effectively impossible, I'd say the easiest solution would be to make advanced SLAM unique. A single bomber K-wing with Sabine would still be unpleasant to say the least, but much more managable.

3 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

By that standard, fortressing and triple k-wings (as well as several other things) are both a problem because they make many important mechanics and concepts of the game irrelevant. However, fortressing is by far the worse offender. Flying bomber K-wings at least does require very good maneuvering skills and planning (so does flying against them for that matter). On the other hand I cannot imagine a duller and less interesting game than the one where one of the players just sits in a corner for 75 minutes. That reason alone is enough for me to believe that fortressing needs to go away if the game is to stay remotely healthy.

By and large fortressing is a technique where you wait for a good engagement point. It is not ever viable to sit in a corner for 75 mins... Unless the kwings (since thats the example) don't ever engage, in which point final salvo is the determining factor.

Kwing bombers really dont require good flying, they just require a good idea of where your manuevers will land. For the most part, your opponent will not move before you.

4 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

That reason alone is enough for me to believe that fortressing needs to go away if the game is to stay remotely healthy.

That's a matter of perspective. Do you look at it as boring or a tactical challenge?

Also while I don't use the tactic myself and can't see ever using it. Until it actually becomes a common tactic there's little reason to put much energy into changing it. I mean we get a topic about this once every 3 months or so, and normally it's a isolated case so it's not like fortressing is actually happening so often that it would have an impact on the communities health.

The truth is that bomber K-wings probably can't do anything to a fortress stuck in a corner. They just can't drop their bombs because there's no way to maneuver around it. So they won't approach and neither will the fortressing player. 75 minutes later both parties will just roll as many red dice as they have in their lists and the dice gods will determine the winner. That's not "tactical challenge". It's not even a game. If I was a newcomer and was told that's what a high-level X-wing game looks like, I'd never even start with the system.

13 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

If I was a newcomer and was told that's what a high-level X-wing game looks like, I'd never even start with the system.

This argument keeps coming up and is frankly laughable to me. This suggests that a) a newcomer would be first exposed to x-wing through watching a random regional game and b) that the newcomer wouldn't go "man that's bizarre, I wonder if that's a common strategy let me see other games to check that out".

If someone's first experience is stumbling upon one of the extremely rare instances of a tournament game with a fortress and they do no further research before peacing out I really am not sure they would have stuck around anyway because they're not interested enough to look at literally any other games played.

17 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

If I was a newcomer and was told that's what a high-level X-wing game looks like, I'd never even start with the system.

If that's what X-Wing becomes, tripple K vs a fortress is the standard game... Then you'd have a point. But until that becomes what most games are like then it's just an outrider and anyone who thinks that one game is an example of high level X-Wing play... Well I'm not sure that type of person would get the game in the first place.

2 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

If that's what X-Wing becomes, tripple K vs a fortress is the standard game... Then you'd have a point. But until that becomes what most games are like then it's just an outrider and anyone who thinks that one game is an example of high level X-Wing play... Well I'm not sure that type of person would get the game in the first place.

It;s not one game though, hasn't it already happened several times over the last couple of weekends?

It's growing in popularity and could well become a common response to seeing the K-Wings across the table.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

It;s not one game though, hasn't it already happened several times over the last couple of weekends?

I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of it in a while. If it's becoming that common it may point to an issue with Tripple K's being the bigger problem.

Does anyone have link to a match which has fotressing, particularly against k-wings? My Google-fu is coming up with a whole lot of what I don't want to see.

Just now, VanorDM said:

I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of it in a while. If it's becoming that common it may point to an issue with Tripple K's being the bigger problem.

This is really the key point I tried to raise several pages ago. If the best response to a list becomes to not move and hope for a good final salvo maybe something about that list is unhealthy.

8 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

If the best response to a list becomes to not move and hope for a good final salvo maybe something about that list is unhealthy.

Yeah, if this is becoming that common, that you're seeing several games like this per regional... Then yes something needs to be done.

But if the only way to beat a K-Wing list is to sit and wait out the clock, I'm not sure the problem is fortressing. Fortressing was never a huge issue because it wasn't really that hard to beat. You just had to figure out where you could come in from to break up the fortress. If there's a list that has become a mainstay of Regionals that can only be beat this way but can't crack a fortress... The issue with this game goes way, way beyond the tactic itself.

But on the other hand, the topic of this thread was about the sportsmanship of it all... So that's what most of my posts have been about.

If the discussion is about fortressing being bad for the health of the game, I'd be inclined to say it could be if it becomes common. But if it becomes common that may be a symptom of a different issue completely.

2016: the year that ****** it up for everyone.

Make torpedoes good. Whoops, too good!
Make Scum good. Whoops, too good!
Make Defenders good. Whoops, too good!
Make bombs good. Whoops, too good!

Turns out all you're allowed to play now is Scum, bombs, Defenders and torpedoes. Oh, and TLT is still sort of ok. Thank god for that!

*slow clap*

Just now, nigeltastic said:

This argument keeps coming up and is frankly laughable to me. This suggests that a) a newcomer would be first exposed to x-wing through watching a random regional game and b) that the newcomer wouldn't go "man that's bizarre, I wonder if that's a common strategy let me see other games to check that out".

If someone's first experience is stumbling upon one of the extremely rare instances of a tournament game with a fortress and they do no further research before peacing out I really am not sure they would have stuck around anyway because they're not interested enough to look at literally any other games played.

Ehm, I can only speak for myself of course, but the Worlds final 2013 is what sold me on the game. This mesmerizingly beautiful dance of hypermobile Advanced Sensor B-Wings and Biggs versus the TIE swarm was something I just had to experience for myself. I don't think the slew of U-Boat matches that youtube had to suffer through at some point would have had a remotely similar effect.

Yeah, I do think it happens actually quite frequently. If I'm interested in a game I'll watch sample games online to see if it's for me or not.

I can't see the 3K list being a thing too long, it's easily countered, not going to win much, and its popularity (if that happens) will expose its flaws just as quickly.

Once people can't get to the final table with it... Which we're soon, if not already, there... it'll fade.

Plus, someone staring at you like you're a pariah often robs a victory's joy.

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

That's a matter of perspective. Do you look at it as boring or a tactical challenge?

Also while I don't use the tactic myself and can't see ever using it. Until it actually becomes a common tactic there's little reason to put much energy into changing it. I mean we get a topic about this once every 3 months or so, and normally it's a isolated case so it's not like fortressing is actually happening so often that it would have an impact on the communities health.

There is nothing tactically challenging to keep your ships bumping in the corner for 75 minutes in the hopes of winning the stupid dice off rule.

24 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

2016: the year that ****** it up for everyone.

Make torpedoes good. Whoops, too good!
Make Scum good. Whoops, too good!
Make Defenders good. Whoops, too good!
Make bombs good. Whoops, too good!

Turns out all you're allowed to play now is Scum, bombs, Defenders and torpedoes. Oh, and TLT is still sort of ok. Thank god for that!

*slow clap*

That's just bitter and overly pessimist man.

Torpedoes are not too good. Jumpmasters were and they fixed it. I have used torpedoes and missiles in several non-jumpmaster lists and they were useful but far from OP.

Scum aren't "too good". Paratanni is certainly a top-tier list but far from unbeatable and it does require great skill to play effectively.

Defenders are good but their predictability holds them back. They have won a good few large tournaments but it's not like they dominate everything. They would probably be used far less if it wasn't for the bombers which pretty much wiped out all the other imperial alternatives, save perhaps TIE/sf.

Bombs aren't too good, but Sabine is, especially with advanced SLAM. That is a problem that will need to be addressed somehow but again it's not like bomber lists started winning large tournaments left and right. They still do have bad matchups. It's their effect on the meta that worries me, as their sheer presence keeps many imperial ships away from the tables. I'm concerned about Kylo for the very same reason.

In short, it's not nearly as much doom and gloom as you seem to suggest. X-wing is still fun and if you asked me what's gonna win the next big tournament, I'd honestly say I have no idea. I couldn't even tell you which faction it's gonna be. Recently I was a marshall at a regional and even though we had plenty of paratannis and quite a few bomber Mirandas flying around, the fnals were rebel vs empire which included not a single bomb and not a single defender. At the end of the day, X-wing is still a relatively well balanced game.

Still, if you're feeling X-wing fatigue, you're very welcome to join the Armada team. No token stacking, fortressing or bombing there and it's great fun :P.

Just now, BlodVargarna said:

There is nothing tactically challenging to keep your ships bumping in the corner for 75 minutes in the hopes of winning the stupid dice off rule.

Same is said for drive by bombing. To me, these two bland play styles deserve each other and I like the poetic justice in them both often negating the other. Good riddance both

nothing's needed to stop them beyond existing tactics and mechanics.

2 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

There is nothing tactically challenging to keep your ships bumping in the corner for 75 minutes in the hopes of winning the stupid dice off rule.

Not for the person playing the fortress no, but there is a tactical challenge for the person playing against it. If you can't crack a fortress in 75 min's then something is wrong.

1 minute ago, VanorDM said:

Not for the person playing the fortress no, but there is a tactical challenge for the person playing against it. If you can't crack a fortress in 75 min's then something is wrong.

It's also the easiest list to playtest against, for obvious reasons...

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

2016: the year that ****** it up for everyone.

Make torpedoes good. Whoops, too good!
Make Scum good. Whoops, too good!
Make Defenders good. Whoops, too good!
Make bombs good. Whoops, too good!

Turns out all you're allowed to play now is Scum, bombs, Defenders and torpedoes. Oh, and TLT is still sort of ok. Thank god for that!

*slow clap*

If that's your pessimistic outlook on the game, why stop at 2016? X-wing has always been like this:

Make aces good. Whoops, too good!

Make PWTs good. Whoops, too good!

Make Phantoms good. Whoops, too good!

Make swarms good. Whoops, too good!