35 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Yes, people fortress, and it is the correct competitive strategy sometimes, but still, people don't (from my experience) just go to final salvo unless it is a tournament that really matters - people still want to play the game.

What's the definition of an X-Wing tournament "that really matters"?

Fortressing is douchey. It's always been douchey. It will always be douchey. Arguments to the contrary are thin rationalizations that even the people making them don't actually buy into.

34 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

The vast majority of people set out to the play the game, myself included, but even I look at the bomb wall and ask the question - why am I going to go over there?

"Not going over there" and "fortressing" are not congruent.

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

What's the definition an example of an X-Wing tournament "that really matters"?

The Campaign Against Cancer

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

"Not going over there" and "fortressing" are not congruent.

Not entirely the same.

• Fortress is I'm not coming out of my corner until I see reason to.
• I'm not going over there means I fly around on my side of the board, or the opposite side of the board, until I see reason to... Effectively the same from my perspective, but from my opponent's perspective they get to watch to see if I leave an opening worth engaging on.

I've effectively played this "I'm not going over there" game straight to final salvo victory where a player chose to make a bomb wall and hide behind it. Not a whole lot different from fortressing except I need to make sure I don't turn the wrong way and off the map.

Just now, LagJanson said:

I've effectively played this "I'm not going over there" game straight to final salvo victory where a player chose to make a bomb wall and hide behind it. Not a whole lot different from fortressing except I need to make sure I don't turn the wrong way and off the map.

It is different. You're playing the game. (So is the bomb-wall guy.) It's a boring-as-@#$% game, but it's playing the game. Fortressing is abusing the rules to not play the game.

Is it "effectively" the same? Yeah, pretty much. But "playing games" isn't supposed to be about nothing but the end result, and this example is no different.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

It is different. You're playing the game. (So is the bomb-wall guy.) It's a boring-as-@#$% game, but it's playing the game. Fortressing is abusing the rules to not play the game.

Is it "effectively" the same? Yeah, pretty much. But "playing games" isn't supposed to be about nothing but the end result, and this example is no different.

To be perfectly fair, I don't see much difference. The intent is the same on my part. "I'm not going over there." Just because I choose to keep mobile doesn't make it any less or more than somebody declaring the same thing and purpose bumping. I don't practice fortressing so I literally cannot fortress in any effective way and expect to get out of it in a hurry, so I don't. My intent is no different though.

2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

My intent is no different though.

You are playing the game. You're moving your ships. You're risking putting yourself in a bad position. You're risking flying off the board. You're not abusing the rules to not play the game.

You're playing the game. Obviously your intent is different.

34 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

What's the definition of an X-Wing tournament "that really matters"?

Fortressing is douchey. It's always been douchey. It will always be douchey. Arguments to the contrary are thin rationalizations that even the people making them don't actually buy into.

In my mind, any tournament that qualifies you for a different - official - tournament. Could have phrased that better, sorry.

At risk of discussing content (is that even allowed) Solo 1 is a good listen.

8 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

In my mind, any tournament that qualifies you for a different - official - tournament. Could have phrased that better, sorry.

No need to apologize! I'm getting at something different. Let me try again:

"What is it about an X-Wing tournament 'that really matters' that makes it so you would participate in behavior you would otherwise find distasteful enough that you won't do it in an X-Wing tournament that doesn't 'really matter'?"

24 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You are playing the game. You're moving your ships. You're risking putting yourself in a bad position. You're risking flying off the board. You're not abusing the rules to not play the game.

You're playing the game. Obviously your intent is different.

Flying around in a circle or endlessly 4King with defenders or a whole game of 1 straight along the board edge until it’s tine to turn or 4K is functionally no different than fortressing if the end goal is “life sucks on their side of the board, I’ll stay on my side all the way to time”. The fact that your ships technically sort of move and you can’t leave your templates in their case doesn’t mean a defender who does nothing but 4Ks when faced with a bomb Wall is playing the game more than the Scum alpha lists who fortressed against triple Ks was.

1 minute ago, mdl0114 said:

The fact that your ships technically sort of move and you can’t leave your templates in their case doesn’t mean a defender who does nothing but 4Ks when faced with a bomb Wall is playing the game more than the Scum alpha lists who fortressed against triple Ks was.

Yes. It does. As I said, he (and his bomb-wall opponent) are playing a #%^$% boring game ... but they are actually playing the game.

53 minutes ago, kris40k said:

The Campaign Against Cancer

Unironically this but the other definition of matters

There is 0 difference between “I’m going to set a 4K for 75 minutes” and “I’m going to intentionally bump for 75 minutes”. That’s not actually a thing that is different. The fact that one ship would in the extreme bounce between 2 positions vs 1 position all game doesn’t make one a game and one not. Neither one is intending to go play a maneuvering dogfight game they just are using different means to the same end. Putting scorn on the person who decided to set up a fortress because his opponent brought a list doesn’t want to play X-Wing either is like scorning the person who used a netlist rather than was able to make their own entirely original idea.

Just now, mdl0114 said:

There is 0 difference between “I’m going to set a 4K for 75 minutes” and “I’m going to intentionally bump for 75 minutes”. That’s not actually a thing that is different.

Yes, it is. It's both conceptually and literally different. (As I said earlier, it's not effectively different, but playing a game is not always supposed to be only about the end result. I've found that people who don't understand this, unsurprisingly, are usually the ones willing to fortress and pretend to defend fortressing.)

2 minutes ago, mdl0114 said:

There is 0 difference between “I’m going to set a 4K for 75 minutes” and “I’m going to intentionally bump for 75 minutes”. That’s not actually a thing that is different. The fact that one ship would in the extreme bounce between 2 positions vs 1 position all game doesn’t make one a game and one not. Neither one is intending to go play a maneuvering dogfight game they just are using different means to the same end. Putting scorn on the person who decided to set up a fortress because his opponent brought a list doesn’t want to play X-Wing either is like scorning the person who used a netlist rather than was able to make their own entirely original idea.

In this specific case, there is. You can be caught in a really bad position if your opponent manages to get range while you just turned your back on them. With homing missiles or 5+ dice. Because hitting a tokened up Defender isn't that easy. A boosting large base ship could catch one out. Maybe.

Fortressing is optimizing your position and not moving. 4k dancing is badly positioned half the time.

In other news, my son started, on his own, to start his game with a 4k to see where the other player is going. It's easily followed by another one, or a 3 turn.

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No need to apologize! I'm getting at something different. Let me try again:

"What is it about an X-Wing tournament 'that really matters' that makes it so you would participate in behavior you would otherwise find distasteful enough that you won't do it in an X-Wing tournament that doesn't 'really matter'?"

If I want to go to Corosaunt (spelled wrong, because I can't be bothered right now), the only way to go is to win a system open, thus making it, for me, a tournament that matters. Because I want to go badly enough, I will limit my enjoyment with the promise of greater enjoyment down the line.

Just now, Do I need a Username said:

If I want to go to Corosaunt (spelled wrong, because I can't be bothered right now), the only way to go is to win a system open, thus making it, for me, a tournament that matters. Because I want to go badly enough, I will limit my enjoyment with the promise of greater enjoyment down the line.

Okay, so then ... would you engage in the same distasteful behavior once at Coruscant?

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes. It does. As I said, he (and his bomb-wall opponent) are playing a #%^$% boring game ... but they are actually playing the game.

Well, it wasn't too boring since we were firing insults over the bomb wall at each other, taunting each other to cross it first. It wasn't till late in the game did my opponent realize the implications of not engaging - and then it got real interesting real fast... but... not fast enough.

But neither of us were really playing X-Wing. We were playing a different sort of game, not sure what to call it.

I think it comes down on perspective though, not definition. To the outside world, we were playing X-Wing, though in reality neither of us had any intention of attacking the other - which is the point of the game. A fortress game, the entire world knows one player's intent immediately that they are waiting for that opportunity to play and are unlikely to engage until they see an opportunity.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I've found that people who don't understand this, unsurprisingly, are usually the ones willing to fortress and pretend to defend fortressing

I don't understand your position - but perhaps your view hasn't been effectively expressed in a way that I can see your point. By your definition above, I'm defending fortressing, when you clearly state what I do is not fortressing and I've stated that I'm unwilling and unable to fortress.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

Unrelated topic... Anybody figure out an approach vs trajectory simulator yet? I bombed again last night (in that, I was on the receiving end of bombs) and so far my only tactic seems to be - BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MAP! Unfortunately, I can't rely on winning from over there either so I'm trying to puzzle this one out. Tried to range control from R4 to R1... but that doesn't work a whole lot either since that means range controlling from the point of where my opponent's ship was instead of where it will be. Of course, the other option is just to bring big beefy ships that can't take a few hits... Ate 3 out of 4 bombs and 2 of 2 harpoon missile from Nym and still came up on top this past weekend. Not sure I like list building as a solution unless no other choice - it means I'm giving up and hard countered if I brought the wrong ships.

With Genius, it's a pretty large band that follows the way Nym is pointing prior to moving. I don't have Vassal to check, but it's probably most of the straight line, R2 wide from R2 behind him to 5 straight + R1, plus wherever he could drop the bomb after moving.

The "safe" places are the sides, particularly towards the back.

I'd go on a limb and say that planning to eat 1-2 bombs to wipe him out is probably the safest place to be. If he's that bad for your list, you may not have a choice (if winning is something you want).

Yeah I played palp defenders and it was really easy to set up a couple turns of fortressing to see if your opponent will commit or put themselves in a bad position between the shuttle being able to stop, Ryad being able to decide K or straight, and some 3 turns and 4Ks from Vessery. And it was a fortress, even though ships technically moved, whatever other label you want to put to it there was no difference between putting the burden of approach onto the opponent with K turns and 3 turns than if I’d been playing Ketsu/Bossk or Dengar/Bossk and intentionally bumped until I could break out for a good engagement. It’s not useful to draw an arbitrary line in the sand to feel superior to one stall tactic vs the other.

Edit: sent too early, rest of thought: it’d be more useful to look at what exists in the game that encourages fortressing and non-engagement and see if they need to be fixed or if we’re ok with the side effects. If the goal isn’t to look at ways to change the game but just to feel better about ourselves because we aren’t as scummy as player who does X or plays Y that’s a different thing entirely.

3 minutes ago, mdl0114 said:

It’s not useful to draw an arbitrary line in the sand to feel superior to one stall tactic vs the other.

It's definitely useful to me. (It's also not arbitrary.)

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

But neither of us were really playing X-Wing. We were playing a different sort of game, not sure what to call it.

I think it comes down on perspective though, not definition. To the outside world, we were playing X-Wing, though in reality neither of us had any intention of attacking the other - which is the point of the game. A fortress game, the entire world knows one player's intent immediately that they are waiting for that opportunity to play and are unlikely to engage until they see an opportunity.

The point of the game is to kill more points that you lose. A fortress decides to do it by not moving, essentially making the same decision every turn. Your dance around a bomb wall was both players prodding what options were available to them to break the stalemate. In one of those, both players need to think about their dials and their action.

It's not a huge difference and I doubt I'd have the patience for either one. I'd probably crack and think "whatever, I'll see what can be done and try to learn from it!" and just try to attack.

2 minutes ago, drjkel said:

In other news, my son started, on his own, to start his game with a 4k to see where the other player is going. It's easily followed by another one, or a 3 turn.

I tried this, I found that if my opponent is too aggressive they can catch a defender in a bad spot in a turn or two. I find the 1-bank+Barrel roll to be a much better stall maneuver. (Not to say a 4k is bad, I just don't find it optimal)[disclaimer: I play TIE/ds, so some of my points are for those ships]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Okay, so then ... would you engage in the same distasteful behavior once at Coruscant?

No - I have achieved my goal (Getting there) and am now trying to maximize enjoyment.

4 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

No - I have achieved my goal (Getting there) and am now trying to maximize enjoyment.

That's genuinely interesting to me.

So ... you're willing to forego enjoyment in the one tournament for the X% (your estimate goes here) chance that you'll win and be able to fully enjoy the next tournament?

Do I have that right? It seems really odd (and thus interesting, as I said).

(FWIW, I'm not exactly being judgey. After all, I'm the guy who makes the cut in Regionals and then drops, which many people find very odd.)