Player in our group is a win at all costs type and he spent a good amount of time trying to perfect a fortress.

I can understand stalling a few rounds of combat, but waiting indefinitely for an opponent to approach is kinda despicable.

The only time I would justify the fortress is against a K-wing heavy bomber list, which incidentally the above player has latched onto as well. Those lists are a whole other can of worms.

8 hours ago, LordBlades said:

TBH I don't really see why people should be mad at fortressing.

One of the deepest levels of x-wing strategy is making your opponent engage on your terms, as opposed to an even ground/his terms.

Fortressing is just a tool among many to help you achieve that.

It's a response to people trying to get you to play into their abusive strategies.

If I'm going to be abused for merely moving my ships, I'm not going to move them then. No, **** that. And I'm not responsible for this NPE, you are.

15 minutes ago, Skargoth said:

Player in our group is a win at all costs type and he spent a good amount of time trying to perfect a fortress.

I can understand stalling a few rounds of combat, but waiting indefinitely for an opponent to approach is kinda despicable.

The only time I would justify the fortress is against a K-wing heavy bomber list, which incidentally the above player has latched onto as well. Those lists are a whole other can of worms.

The benefit one gets from fortressing scales directly with their opponent's ability to abuse movement.

If one BBBBZ player fortresses and his opponent also has BBBBZ and is "forced" to engage him in his map corner, is that really any different than if they both just jousted at each other? No, not really.

8 hours ago, GreenLantern1138 said:

Biggs is the only relevant X-wing? Wedge and Janson would like a word with you.

We are talking about X-wing the minatures game not the REAL lore that people spent tons of blood sweet and tears creating just to have disney and FFG throw all their hard work out the window to make the name of the game run through the mud.

21 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

We are talking about X-wing the minatures game not the REAL lore that people spent tons of blood sweet and tears creating just to have disney and FFG throw all their hard work out the window to make the name of the game run through the mud.

There were about 16 people at my FLGS the other day, and at least half of them had Biggs in their squads. I even saw a few Wes Jansons and Jess Pava and a Wedge and Poe.

Calm down.

27 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

The benefit one gets from fortressing scales directly with their opponent's ability to abuse movement.

If one BBBBZ player fortresses and his opponent also has BBBBZ and is "forced" to engage him in his map corner, is that really any different than if they both just jousted at each other? No, not really.

Except I doubt FFG balanced ships with the purpose of fortressing so some ships will get increased, though difficult to calculate, benefits that are not accounted for in unit costing.

Your initial thought can easily be reversed.

The benefit one gets from fortressing scales directly with their own ability to abuse unforeseen mechanics (read: outside intended play) with a list that complements the strategy.

That, to me, is more NPE than most other stuff. We all have our own biases though.

14 minutes ago, Skargoth said:

Your initial thought can easily be reversed.

The benefit one gets from fortressing scales directly with their own ability to abuse unforeseen mechanics (read: outside intended play) with a list that complements the strategy.

What are you saying? Explain better with examples please.

1 hour ago, Turbo Toker said:

What are you saying? Explain better with examples please.

I think he is trying to say boosting and barrel rolls are an intended mechanic in the game whereas ships stopping when they touch is an unintended mechanic due to the limitations of playing a game that takes place in 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional plane and therefore likely outside the originally intended play style of the game's design.

2 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

There were about 16 people at my FLGS the other day, and at least half of them had Biggs in their squads. I even saw a few Wes Jansons and Jess Pava and a Wedge and Poe.

Calm down.

Calm? Do "murder" and "calm" go together? Calm and murder? Murder?

I bet noone gets this....

2 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

What are you saying? Explain better with examples please.

Someone can develop a list with the intention of deploying every game in a fortress. This can be a list with a high PS alpha and/or auxiliary firing arcs. Infinitely stationary positioning is not an intended gameplay design, that's why 0s are red and the Quadjumper doesn't get 1 forwards that would allow it to go back and forth indefinitely.

39 minutes ago, Skargoth said:

Someone can develop a list with the intention of deploying every game in a fortress. This can be a list with a high PS alpha and/or auxiliary firing arcs. Infinitely stationary positioning is not an intended gameplay design, that's why 0s are red and the Quadjumper doesn't get 1 forwards that would allow it to go back and forth indefinitely.

That's why you can't put Hera crew on a U-Wing.

And those lists when faced with a list that doesn't abuse movement consequently don't benefit that much from staying still as opposed to flying around.

Man, I forgot how much debate fortressing creates...

4 minutes ago, Caboose2900 said:

Man, I forgot how much debate fortressing creates...

It's definitely one of the more controversial topics. I personally don't like it for flavor reasons, but it does have disadvantages to counter the advantages, giving it the appearance of balance, so *shrugs*

5 hours ago, CJKeys said:

I think he is trying to say boosting and barrel rolls are an intended mechanic in the game whereas ships stopping when they touch is an unintended mechanic due to the limitations of playing a game that takes place in 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional plane and therefore likely outside the originally intended play style of the game's design.

The original intended play style of the game's design would be Trench Run lists, swarms, or 4 B-Wings. When you play the game with these types of lists against other wave 1-3 lists there isn't much to be gained from fortressing. What is the difference between 2 jousting lists engaging halfway up the map, or in one corner of the map? Not much.

It's only when you can be very easily and severely abused for the mere act of moving your ships that fortressing benefits you significantly.

If a pre fix Phantom is going to always dodge all of my arcs no matter what I do, or a Dash player is going to force me to commit to a direction and then pound me with a double modded HLC as my reward for losing a coin flip, or a K-Wing player is going to drop a 4 cost/4 damage on average mine on me no matter where I move to, don't get mad at me when I stop playing your game. THOSE are the things that are, "likely outside the originally intended play style of the game's design".

People that play those types of lists that get fortressed against have no right to complain. People that play normal lists that get fortressed against have no right to complain either, since fortressing doesn't actually benefit their enemy that much against reasonable squads that don't excessively punish you for moving.

If the risks of moving my ships are greater than the benefits are, there is no reason to move my ships. Maybe if it (*holds megaphone to mouth*) wasn't so dangerous to >simply move my god damned ships< I wouldn't need to fortress.

7 hours ago, Skargoth said:

Someone can develop a list with the intention of deploying every game in a fortress. This can be a list with a high PS alpha and/or auxiliary firing arcs. Infinitely stationary positioning is not an intended gameplay design, that's why 0s are red and the Quadjumper doesn't get 1 forwards that would allow it to go back and forth indefinitely.

Cassian Andor pilot begs to disagree. FFG put a tool that would allow an U wing to stop indefinitely in the very same pack.