17 minutes ago, Sparklelord said:

Would argue that, against AdvSLAM triple K bombers, "playing X-Wing" was never an option to begin with.

I mean, if the K-Wing player is throwing red dice more than two or three times, they've made a mistake in that game.

First, triple-Wardens were terrifying only to fragile aces. Which themselves were terrifying to other archetypes. And so it goes.

Second, how many tournaments did non-Miranda bombing K-wings win?

The furor over "triple K-wings" was almost entirely invented by people who simply adore double-repositioning aces, and don't think there should be a list that takes them down. Dog-whistle: "Arcs should always matter."

(EDIT: Unintentionally abrupt opening.)

29 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Second, how many tournaments did non-Miranda bombing K-wings win?

I want to start with this point, and pose a similar question.

How many tournaments did Ghost-Fenn actually win?

A list can do oppressively well without coming out #1 every time it shows up.

Then, back to the first point:

That's not quite right.

Triple K's were terrifying to any ship that lacked reactive repositioning, or turrets. Aces were the better-equipped ships to deal with managing to keep them in arc, the problem is that aces just take damage and die.

The compounding issue was that it was an unparalleled amount of damage being done.

I don't think you're right that it's just "fragile aces" that had to fear them. The 28 hp list that fortressed probably was one of the better matchups to tank a bunch of bombs, sure. But... within 1 round of bombing, what you need is one better-than-average roll and the rest just average (assuming you hit it with 2 out of 3 cluster mines with each K-Wing) and lo and behold you've killed one G-1A before it shoots. Then, you have enough cluster mines to repeat the process after disengaging. Importantly, your 27 hp is not much less than the 28 hp in the 4 ship list. And when they want to disengage, K-Wings are able to move faster than any other ship in the game, except boosting large base ships.

(1) Ghost-Fenn did well in (and won) a large number of tournaments.

(2) Triple-Ks did not do "oppressively well." Ever. There were about 12 factors keeping fragile ships down, and AceWingers just seized on "triple K-wings" as the boogieman. It had zero grounding in actual reality. It's absolutely true that ships can oppress the meta after showing that they are a serious threat (by winning tournaments), even if they are not currently winning tournaments. But triple K-wings never did so.

(3) So ... your example of "unparalleled damage" is "hitting a single Small-based ship with 2-of-3 Cluster Mines from all three K-wings"? Do you see any issues with that analysis?

(4) Gunboats are just as fast. But they're not a boogie-man because "they have arcs" (i.e., they are no threat to the supreme skill showed by double-repositioning ace players).

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Then  why was it is a thing before Final Salvo? Just to anticipate the response, "It became much more prevalent  after Final Salvo" ...  

Yes, and I played against them then then too. That said, why did people use Uwings prior to Saw? Why did people use torpedoes before chips? Just because something is not optimal doesn't mean people won't try it. When it becomes optimal the popularity will increase to match.

And while not optimal, fortressing could work before, that isn't the argument. Draws hurt both players so there wasn't the same incentive to just wait out the game like there is now.

That said, I'm not going to even enter an argument on the topic because I simply don't care.

13 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

And while not optimal, fortressing could work before, that isn't the argument. Draws hurt both players so there wasn't the same incentive to just wait out the game like there is now.

That said, I'm not going to even enter an argument on the topic because I simply don't care.

There's no need to argue, at least partially because I don't think we disagree much, if at all.

But I'd ask you to consider what you wrote about: there wasn't "the same incentive to just wait out the game" like there is now.

Nobody that actually wants to play X-Wing has enough of an incentive in Final Salvo to "wait out the game."

The problem is not Final Salvo. The problem is that more players now care far more about recording the W than they care about playing a game of X-Wing. That change is orders of magnitude bigger than the "no draws, Final Salvo instead" change. And it, unsurprisingly, has a correspondingly bigger effect on whether people fortress or not.

Hello, I'm Daniel and I'm a castler and I'm proud. I've been a castler since 2014. However I haven't castled in over a year.

This is a video of me castling my way to winning a 70 player Regional in 2016/17 Season (Meta: Dengaroo, Palp-Defenders, Paratanni) with 3 G1A-s and a Z vs bombing K-wings.

I also made 2nd place in a 110 player regional in 2014 with 2 B-wing and 2 Y-wings (Meta: Phantom Mini-swarm, Big ship rebel PWT and Zs) by castling through the Phantom Mini-swarm match ups.

I'm here to tell you that castling is not a result of Final Salvo. Nor, Jeff, is it a result of not wanting to actually play X-Wing . Nor would I desist if after a time my Oppo could coin flip for a win.

It's a strategical and tactical response to a meta that prohibits certain lists from meaningfully participating in the game.

I castled in 2016 not because I would win on salvo, but because my opponents who were running actual tournament fit lists had to maximize their MoV due to the tournament structure and had to "come at me" giving me the maximum chance of winning the opening engagement. If they didn't I'd have stayed in the corner for 75 minutes and taken my salvo win, sure, but I'm not it any way playing "less" X-Wing than players who built lists to ignore dice variance and taking damage (palp, token stacks, regen), ignore the planning phase (because of repositioning), ignore obstacles (dash).

BTW, who ever has castled in games they can win in the open field?

I would still castle with certain (bad) lists vs other specific lists even if the rules were set up to guarantee me a loss because in a no win match up a loss with good MoV is better than leaving my deployment zone never to have a triple repositioning ship in arc for the rest of the game while it picks me off 1 by 1.

If you close off viable strategies to advanced players with these kind of regulations, you are simply giving us new regulations which we'll break in a way that can favor us. Or you are injecting knock on and unpleasant game play elements into the game.

Some of these suggestions are not going to work the way you think they will...

Rules against bumping friendly ships in their deployment? I can deploy to build a castle on turn 2 outside my deployment zone.

Stress when you bump? I can build lists that will clog up the table so that no one has fun.

Damage on friendly bumps? Do tractor beam tokens work in 2.0?

The way to stop castling is the learn how to beat a castle (easy) or have the discipline not to engage .

The idea though that castling is 'wrong' or 'unsportsmanlike' is arbitrary and opens the doors for anyone running combos that have defined the meta game at various times as the same. Why don't we just brand anyone playing creatively as a cheater whenever they dial a move I didn't predict? after all it's not fun for me to get stupendously outplayed....

4 hours ago, wurms said:

Add in rule:

"Stalemate: If no player has attacked by 45 minute mark in the round, any player may choose to instantly end the game with a "Special Final Salvo". Each player rolls 4 red dice, the player with the most hits crits is the winner."

Gives no advantage to red dice final salvos. Allows more than enough time to self bump in a corner (like Palp Aces) for positional strategies. And if the game is actually being played and players are just vying for best position for 45 minutes, then players can keep playing.

TOs can just announce 30 minites left in the round, and that is the time for determination of a stalemate.

This. The issue isn't bumping, but some odd incentives to non-game the game.

I'd make it six dice, just to be a little more dramatic. I throw 4-dice attacks all the time. Rolling 6 is kinda special. But maybe it should be a lame dice roll, to discourage it from happening.

43 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

(1) Ghost-Fenn did well in (and won) a large number of tournaments.

(2) Triple-Ks did not do "oppressively well." Ever. There were about 12 factors keeping fragile ships down, and AceWingers just seized on "triple K-wings" as the boogieman. It had zero grounding in actual reality. It's absolutely true that ships can oppress the meta after showing that they are a serious threat (by winning tournaments), even if they are not currently winning tournaments. But triple K-wings never did so.

Interesting[?] factoid: Ghost Fenn won the New England regional this year. Last year? Triple K bombers.

24 minutes ago, DrDickSplash said:

Nor, Jeff, is it a result of not wanting to actually play X-Wing .

Sounds like it to me. You can rationalize it, of course, but the simple fact is that you brought a list that, were you to actually play the game, was at a significant disadvantage to the list someone else brought.

Instead of playing the game and making the best of the disadvantage, you elected not to play the game. Your desire to record the W was stronger than your desire to actually play X-Wing .

And don't get me wrong ... X-Wing got to be a serious problem with the amount of disadvantage possible in any given match-up. 80/20 is too much of that. Absolutely. No question.

But most people played the game anyway.

33 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Interesting[?] factoid: Ghost Fenn won the New England regional this year. Last year? Triple K bombers.

I'm not able to find any Regionals win by three Wardens in List Juggler. Do you know the exact name of the tournament or store?

and if games began in a fifty fifty state, I would agree. But they don't. If i have a 30% chance of winning I take a 50% everytime. It just shifts the percentages, not necessarily the action. I think the goal is noble, but ultimately futile. No matter the tie breaker, one person is encouraged to not play by the tournament structure.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Sounds like it to me. You can rationalize it, of course, but the simple fact is that you brought a list that, were you to actually play the game, was at a significant disadvantage to the list someone else brought.

Instead of playing the game and making the best of the disadvantage, you elected not to play the game. Your desire to record the W was stronger than your desire to actually play X-Wing .

Explain to me how this isn't a case of: "Play X-Wing the way I prescribe, or you're not playing"

Electing not to play the game would look like a turn zero concession.

I deploy ships, place dials and roll dice as I'm called to do. I'm moving my ships legally but not the way you want, so I'm not playing the game?

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

X-Wing got to be a serious problem with the amount of disadvantage possible in any given match-up. 80/20 is to  o much of that. Absolutely. No question.

But most people played the game anyway.

Most people were engaging in futility. Going through motions so your opponent wont whine is less playing the game than is castling.

As I said, you can rationalize. It's what humans do. It doesn't change the fact that instead of actually playing a game of X-Wing, you elected not to. Because the W was more important that pushing spaceships around.

And you're not alone. That kind of priority has become increasingly common as X-Wing 1.0 has progressed.

And, as I said, it's understandable. My being able to understand and empathize doesn't change the facts of it, however.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

As I said, you can rationalize. It's what humans do. It doesn't change the fact that instead of actually playing a game of X-Wing, you elected not to. Because the W was more important that pushing spaceships around.

And you're not alone. That kind of priority has become increasingly common as X-Wing 1.0 has progressed.

And, as I said, it's understandable. My being able to understand and empathize doesn't change the facts of it, however.

You didn't answer my question: Explain to me how this isn't a case of: "Play X-Wing the way I prescribe, or you're not playing"

Mill decks in ccg’s aren’t “playing the game” either. What it boils down to though is they are not playing the “same” game. I see castling as literally the same thing. It is a janky thought patern but it is valid. The reason people get butt hurt is because you can’t win against it the same way you can against really anything else. It does have counter play though just not with the tools you win with dog fighting. So is it wrong? Debatable. Is it not playing the game? No. It’s not playing your game and that is very different. I have never castled but I wouldn’t whine about it if someone did it to me. I’d try to figure out HOW I could have beat it instead of screaming foul. I hate mill decks too btw but have beaten plenty.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Because the W was more important that pushing spaceships around.

So X-Wing is just pushing space ships around? That's it? No tactics, no thinking, no trying to outsmart your opponent? Wow, that game really sucks!

I'm willing to bet that anyone complaining about castling is willing to fly Ghost/Fenn.

8 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Instead of playing the game and making the best of the disadvantage, you elected not to play the game. Your desire to record the W was stronger than your desire to actually play X-Wing .

It's a tournament. It's not reasonable to expect someone to play suboptimally because you don't like the optimal strategy in that situation.

The problem is not people castling: people are always going to go for the most effective strategies they know in high level competitive. The problem is castling working in the first place. 2.0 and its flexible point costs should go a long way to remedying that.

12 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm not able to find any Regionals win by three Wardens in List Juggler. Do you know the exact name of the tournament or store?

Couldn't find it on List Juggler myself in a quick look. It probably isn't there. I didn't attend, but local friends said the tournament was plagued by bad management. Anyhow, here are the lists for the final matchup from a post by the X-Wing Miniatures Maine Facebook Group:

Quote

Final Match of the Northeast 2016 X-Wing Regionals hosted by Toys N Things !!!

Final pairing is Maine's own Harrison Waldo with "Dengaroo" verses Erich Ridlon with "Jade's K-Bombers"

Harrison Waldo (97)

Dengar (58) - JumpMaster 5000
Lone Wolf (2), Flechette Torpedoes (2), Plasma Torpedoes (3), Zuckuss (1), Overclocked R4 (1), Inertial Dampeners (1), Punishing One (12), Countermeasures (3)

Manaroo (39) - JumpMaster 5000
Push The Limit (3), Latts Razzi (2), Unhinged Astromech (1), Feedback Array (2), Engine Upgrade (4)

Erich Ridlon (100)

Warden Squadron Pilot (34) - K-Wing
Extra Munitions (2), Sabine Wren (2), Seismic Charges (2), Proximity Mines (3), Advanced SLAM (2)

Warden Squadron Pilot (33) - K-Wing
Extra Munitions (2), "Chopper" (0), Seismic Charges (2), Conner Net (4), Advanced SLAM (2)

Warden Squadron Pilot (33) - K-Wing
Extra Munitions (2), Seismic Charges (2), Cluster Mines (4), Advanced SLAM (2)

13 hours ago, DrDickSplash said:

Explain to me how this isn't a case of: "Play X-Wing the way I prescribe, or you're not playing"

We both know that any description of the game of X-Wing to an outside party will never involve fortressing in a corner until 75 minutes have passed. We both know what "playing the game" means, and we both know you're rationalizing ... and why.

12 hours ago, Ubul said:

So X-Wing is just pushing space ships around? That's it? No tactics, no thinking, no trying to outsmart your opponent? Wow, that game really sucks!

Did you even notice that you had to add word the word "just" to what I said in order to make your point?

10 hours ago, JasonCole said:

I'm willing to bet that anyone complaining about castling is willing to fly Ghost / Fenn .

Interestingly, my experience is pretty much exactly the opposite. Most of the people I know that dislike fortressing dislike it because it's not fun for either player. Which it shares in common with Ghost/Fenn. Meanwhile, on the "nothing wrong with fortressing" side, you routinely hear people say, "Sure, if you want to win, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Ghost/Fenn." That W is all-important.

6 hours ago, Firespray-32 said:

It's a tournament. It's not reasonable to expect someone to play suboptimally because you don't like the optimal strategy in that situation.

I concede that with the state of the X-Wing player-base it's not reasonable. (God knows why, but I remain an optimist.) My point is that the reason fortressing happens is because people value the win higher than they value playing the game.

On 7/26/2018 at 4:19 PM, Archangelspiv said:

I thought Paragoombaslayer was back...

Nah, I imagine at this point he turned into some kind of Gandhi with the removal of turrets and then into Civilization Gandhi when he learned about Luke gunner. He probably is too buisy researching a way to nuke FFG headquarters to post anywhere at the moment.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Did you even notice that you had to add word the word "just" to what I said in order to make your point?

I didn't have to. My point stands without it. You completely missed it, though.

Why are stop maneuvers 'red'? Meaning, if a stop is a red move, why shouldn't a bump also be red as I have laid out in my original post? It stands to reason that since some ships actually have a stop and that stop can be red, that bumps should be red on all ships.

As I stated before, this doesn't prevent castling but is punishes it heavily. Anyone choosing to castle won't have actions on their first engagement while their opponent will be token'd up. The reason for castling is to guarantee the optimal initial engagement.

And yes, players absolutely abuse the bumping mechanics for the castling strategy. Its no different than 'double pumps' in fortnite (shoot with 1 shotgun, then switch to another shotgun to ignore reloading times). Players argued till they were blue about how double pump is a learned strategy. The reality was that double pumps were a result of a game exploit allowing players to ignore the reload time on shotguns by fast switching. Epic finally fixed double pumps . Castling is exploiting the bumping rules in order to keep ships in place.

We KNOW that the game wasn't designed to allow the vast majority of ships to stay in place. The ships that COULD stay in place, got a stress token and so could only do it once every other round assuming the ships could clear the stress with a green move.

Please don't be like the double pump fortnite players who cry. Castling is an exploitation which is simply unfun to play against.

15 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

Why are stop maneuvers 'red'? Meaning, if a stop is a red move, why shouldn't a bump also be red as I have laid out in my original post?

Because a bump is not a stop manoeuvre.

19 hours ago, Ubul said:

I didn't have to. My point stands without it. You completely missed it, though.

So let‘s try your comment without your addition of just:

On 7/27/2018 at 3:37 AM, Ubul said:

So X-Wing is pushing space ships around? That's it? No tactics, no thinking, no trying to outsmart your opponent? Wow, that game really sucks!

Huh, funny how that works*

*it doesn‘t anymore. Nobody said „that‘s it“ like nobody said it is „just“ pushing spaceships around.