5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The circling-the-bowl isn't the same thing. Players are moving. There's nothing wrong with moving and jockeying for position. I don't understand, at all, why people make this false equivalency. If ships are moving, then players are risking making mistakes. That's what playing the game is.

This.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Have you really never played a game with officiating before?

and this.

The more I think about it, the more it just seems like such absolute bull**** from judges. It all just seems like an aesthetic preference, and because they don't like the look of how some lists fly, they'll start forcing players to play bad or get DQed. It's so very presumptuous. A judge's role isn't to give one kind of list an advantage or disadvantage over another--it's to ensure that players are on even footing.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The circling-the-bowl isn't the same thing. Players are moving. There's nothing wrong with moving and jockeying for position. I don't understand, at all, why people make this false equivalency. If ships are moving, then players are risking making mistakes. That's what playing the game is.

I mean, Iain Hamp literally calls it a "mobile fortress," so it too is moving. It's also risking mistakes.

Again, though: both players wanted the engagement to play out this way. If both of them are consenting to play the game this way, why is it a problem? Sure, it sucks for spectators, but it's not the responsibility of the people at that table to entertain viewers, and I'm not big on the idea that they should both be forced to fly their lists in ways they don't want.

2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

The more I think about it, the more it just seems like such absolute bull**** from judges. It all just seems like an aesthetic preference, and because they don't like the look of how some lists fly, they'll start forcing players to play bad or get DQed. It's so very presumptuous. A judge's role isn't to give one kind of list an advantage or disadvantage over another--it's to ensure that players are on even footing.

I mean, Iain Hamp literally calls it a "mobile fortress," so it too is moving. It's also risking mistakes.

I mean, okay, I guess.

But at least you know ahead of time.

Also, if you're legitimately mad, you should email ffg.

45 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The circling-the-bowl isn't the same thing. Players are moving. There's nothing wrong with moving and jockeying for position. I don't understand, at all, why people make this false equivalency. If ships are moving, then players are risking making mistakes. That's what playing the game is.

But they are moving - hence "mobile fortress." They want to be able to make their attack from the appropriate angle around their shield rock, so maybe it's not all that different. Shrug. I'll just assume you all know what you're talking about because you play way more than me.

40 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

Again, though: both players wanted the engagement to play out this way. If both of them are consenting to play the game this way, why is it a problem? Sure, it sucks for spectators, but it's not the responsibility of the people at that table to entertain viewers, and I'm not big on the idea that they should both be forced to fly their lists in ways they don't want.

It's not just about the spectators, though. It's about the fact that there's nothing in the game that creates or forces either player to engage in the game itself or to change the game state except at the time limit. And, unfortunately, it's not an isolated incident. It's also likely that in some cases where it would be the "correct" play, players choose to avoid delay because it isn't interesting to them personally.

I'd also think that the highest levels of the game should be about fierce competition within the game itself and require the thoughtful play throughout the game for the players (regardless of whether or not there are spectators), otherwise, we may as well change the time limit for some finals to 15 minutes for some games.

Imagine the game clock gets extended to five hours. If your tactics would then call for waiting 4 hours and 50 minutes before engaging, you're doing it wrong. It's really not that hard folks. The indignation on display here seems oddly misplaced. I doubt very many of us are going to have any of our games impacted by this at all.

21 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

But they are moving - hence "mobile fortress."

"Mobile fortress" is intended to highlight that they are moving, but they are not moving and jockeying for position. They are simply moving and waiting . (In other words, they are stalling.) It's not the same thing.

This is such a stupid thread.

The idea that a judge would force a player to engage when they don't want to is ludicrous. If one player is unwilling to engage, then it's the opponents job to force that engagement. If you know what they're going to do, it's up to you as the other player to take advantage of that.

True fortressing is different, as there is no way to engage that.

I'm in, I've said my piece, I'm out.

Here are my thoughts, speaking as someone who doesn't go to tournaments (at least not yet), and strictly plays for fun and won't be impacted no matter what happens, but finds the discussion about the strategy and tactics interesting.

First, neither player did anything wrong. They were both playing to win in their own way and they were not stalling. I have lost a tournament in a another game with a prize worth hundreds of dollars due to what felt like actual stalling, this was not that.

Second, judges trying to fix the problem by telling players to engage is likely to cause more aggravation than it is to fix the problem. Because what one person may consider engaging, or gaining position to engage another is going to consider stalling.

The real problem is neither player having an incentive to engage or move in such a way as to create an opening. And to provide my thoughts on this here is a quote from a different thread where this was also being discussed:

Quote

I don't agree with the warning to force people to engage either. It gets too subjective on what counts as engaging.

Assuming some kind of objective or secondary point system isn't added I do think there are two changes that would further reduce the instance of this kind of outcome (which I don't think anyone involved really enjoys).

First the fortressing rule should be expanded/modified slightly to encompass the idea that the only ships that can remain in the same location several turns in a row without engaging an enemy ship are those that can do it without being within range 0 of a friendly ship, any other ship persisting in that state for X amount of rounds would be destroyed. I think flying circuits like most of the ships were doing in the match in question is fine, because the maneuverability to perform a tight circuit is part of the cost of the ship, and it's unlikely two squads are going to have circuits of the same period, so there should be odd openings that come from the difference in periods. In the case of this game, forcing the Arc and Delta-7 to move would have likely forced some kind of engagement because it would be hard for the Arc to fly a circuit without exposing itself eventually, especially when maneuvering around the other friendlies.

Second, if both squads can successfully fly repeating circuits without creating an opening, start speeding up the clock or periodically fast forward it X amount of minutes, this will help the game come to a quicker resolution. If both players just want to go to final salvo, that should be an option as well.

Just my two cents as an outsider in this case.

In essence, either create a secondary objective that provides an incentive to move, or if your not going to do that force each ship to "mobile fortress" on its own merits. Part of a ships price accounts for their maneuverability, if you want to fly in a circle to try and create an ideal engagement you should have constraints on how you spend points to do that effectively. And for the corner cases still left just move the stupid clock to where it needs to be to change behavior or go to final salvo.

6 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

The more I think about it, the more it just seems like such absolute bull**** from judges. It all just seems like an aesthetic preference, and because they don't like the look of how some lists fly, they'll start forcing players to play bad or get DQed. It's so very presumptuous. A judge's role isn't to give one kind of list an advantage or disadvantage over another--it's to ensure that players are on even footing.

From your posts on this subject, it sounds like you believe that "fortressing" includes things like Kylo up on points choosing to run to time, or Vader and Soontir playing cagey and toilet-bowling around an opposing list?

If that's the case, then this thread is a bunch of speaking-past.

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

From your posts on this subject, it sounds like you believe that "fortressing" includes things like Kylo up on points choosing to run to time, or Vader and Soontir playing cagey and toilet-bowling around an opposing list?

If that's the case, then this thread is a bunch of speaking-past.

I guess a lot of my point is that there are tactics of non-engagement that happen at the start, and tactics of non-engagement which happen at the end. They both reduce the amount of time in the game which is actually rolling dice against each other's ships. One's good, one's bad? There are ways to force someone to engage you in an unfavorable part of the board by running, and ways to force someone to engage you in an unfavorable part of the board by floating in a smallish area. Maybe that's more of a results-based focus than a process-based one. They aren't the same, but they often aim to accomplish the same things.

The zeal against a floating "fortress" seems like it comes with a lot of complaints that "it isn't engaging, and it's stalling for time." There are a lot of ways that players in this game stall for time and avoid engaging. This one seems singled out. It's also a method which gets used by generics, while other forms of of playing for time and avoiding fights get used by aces, and those seem to be fine. That doesn't sit well with me. If the principle is that stalling for time is bad, floating fortresses aren't the only way folks do that, and those seem to be ignored. If the principle is that non-engagement and waiting for the right time to attack is bad, well, clearly that isn't a general principle which folks are trying to apply here. No, only the floating fortress seems to be targeted, nothing else which applies similar techniques to gain advantage in games.

Did that one final suck? Sure.

Would it suck less if both sides were ace lists which circled the board for nearly two hours, and only turned in to fight for one round in the end? No, it'd suck exactly the same amount.

Do most ace lists circle for ten or fifteen minute less than the time limit? No. Do most hovering Phantom/Starviper lists float about for nearly the whole span of a game? No, they also intend to strike if they get a good opportunity. Wait for your opponent to get into an angle of attack, and outmaneuver them in the knife-fight. I don't think it's right to say that an ace list can keep running until they get a good flank, demand that a player chase them, while a generic list is unable to respond make a decision to stand rather than to chase.

Folks say "oh, it isn't playing, you're not risking anything." Eh. Those B-Wings took a wrong turn in Toronto, effectively ending the game. Folks can mess up dials and lose games that way. Doesn't happen often, but it's non-zero that someone messes up. Maybe the ships k-turning along the edge are pointed the wrong way at the wrong time, and a cunning opponent can get in free damage. And I don't really think running away is always that much more challenging. Dial in a 3-bank or a 4-straight and boost; no one will catch that Falcon.

I'm not unsympathetic to the goal of "X-Wing is better when people fight" but I don't like when that seems to be directed only at one kind of tactic folks use to not-fight. I don't like the idea of judges saying to a swarm player "you've got to move and expose your flank to the aces" in the same way I don't like the idea of judges necessarily saying to an ace player "you've got to turn in now." I like it less, however, when it kinda sounds like folks won't say to ace players that they've got to joust, but they will say to generic fliers that they've got to expose their flanks. This means of gaining an advantage for an eventual engagement is fine, the other means is wrong, and it closely aligns with the different tools available to different lists.

It can't be fixed by judges, but I really believe the only right way to fix the problem (to the extend it's a problem-- most of the time the fortress doesn't last until all-but-one-round, most of the time the aces don't circle until all-but-one-round) is to have an active incentive to engage. Maybe part of it is to adjust Final Salvo, to alter incentives and make it less optimal (more dice often means "fight me here" gets the last word over "chase me"). Maybe that's some sort of objective system, where the players can decide for themselves how they want to attempt to score points from it or how to engage their opponent. It's probably not easy. X-Wing isn't a symmetric game. Players have different lists and they work in different ways and it's probably hard to have one set of rules that's close enough to fair for everyone.

But still, I think as much as possible, players should figure this out for themselves. How they want to approach. How long they want to circle before they see the right opportunity. How long they want to hover and float. When they want to disengage, and whether they turn around or keep running. I think these are decisions which ought to be made by players, not by judges.

Particularly when it seems like *one* style of list is being singled out.

P.S. Emphasis added in place of a TL,DR.

P.P.S. Less important, but going last because it'd break up my flow, it's a massively RAI approach. I know I shouldn't care, but it kind of irks me. FFG incredibly narrowly defined fortressing, essentially targeting only truly static positions. However, a mention of fortressing in the stalling the game/unsporting conduct is being radically expanded beyond the actual definition in the tournament regs. If judges made a similar ruling on cards or the rules reference, they'd probably get slammed in the forums. I recall back in 1e when the devs tried to make an unofficial statement that they didn't want Genius and Trajectory Simulator, and a lot of judges wouldn't accept only that. The cards said one thing, and until there was an official FAQ, they felt the right thing to do was to follow the text of the cards. It was an approach to TrajSim Genius that said, "FFG got the rules wrong, left out some unintended consequences, and the right thing to do is demand FFG fix it, rather than change the rules ourselves." There's something to respect in that. This... kinda feels like the opposite.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

I guess a lot of my point is that there are tactics of non-engagement that happen at the start, and tactics of non-engagement which happen at the end. They both reduce the amount of time in the game which is actually rolling dice against each other's ships. One's good, one's bad?

I almost feel I should apologise for bringing your post down to a couple of sentences, but to put it succinctly: yes, one is good, one is bad.

Running for time at the end of the game is acceptable (good might be too strong a word) because it requires that a game be played first . And aces aren't the only ones who do it, either; I often see generics break and scatter in the dying minutes of the game so that the ace can't get to enough of them in time.

Fortressing, whether mobile or not, at the start is not playing the game; it is abusing the tie-break mechanic . It is telling your opponent that you're playing craps, not X-wing, it's just a question of whether they want green dice involved in it or not. It is an attempt to take dials out of the equation -- basically just taking a different route to reach the game state combo-wing was aiming for.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Folks say "oh, it isn't playing, you're not risking anything." Eh. Those B-Wings took a wrong turn in Toronto, effectively ending the game. Folks can mess up dials and lose games that way. Doesn't happen often, but it's non-zero that someone messes up.

This bit I wanted to highlight in particular, because it's crap and you're better than this, Fig. People aren't talking about technical mistakes like placing a dial the wrong way when they say this. They're talking about tactical mistakes -- which target to go after, which lane to close off, which action to take. Otherwise known as playing X-wing.

The worst part about all of this is these tactics are strictly unnecessary. In the final that started all this, both players had realistic options to actually play X-wing and win. The Viper player had 4 ships moving after the bulk of the enemy; he could easily have taken the ace role, broken up his formation to try and make the opponent think he could catch one, then collapse on him. The Republic player had a freaking Aethersprite , one of the most agile ships in the game, and could have attempted baiting with it to draw the enemy in.

But apparently neither one actually knows how to do anything more than abuse the clock and/or Final Salvo. Shame, really.

6 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

They  both reduce the amount of time in the game which is actually rolling dice against each other's ships. One's good, one's bad  ? 

Yeah, pretty much?

The key yard stick is advancement of the board state.

If your ships are just castling into each other, the board state isn't advancing whatsoever. If your ships are just 4k-ing in place, the board state isn't advancing.

Aces moving around a table are advancing a board state. Quad Phantom's movement is super broken from a game design standpoint, but the great majority of that movement doesn't consist of turtling in a corner (although sometimes it does), but instead to move around the rocks and advance the board state.

If you walked away from a game for three turns, and the position of ships on the table was meaningfully different when you came back, it's probably not fortressing.

6 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Maybe  that's more of a results-based focus than a process-based one  .

From your arguments, I think it's actually an ideological one. You seem more against the idea of judge intervention foundationally.

5 hours ago, Alpha Kenny Buddy said:

I know this is probably the worst place for a football (soccer) analogue, given its an American geeky-ish forum, but a similar discussion has been happening for years about negative football.

More recently used by Burley and Atletico Madrid, but probably made more popular by Mourihnos first stint at Chelsea at the beginning of the century. Its the idea of going from "I'll score one more goal than the opponent" to "I'll concede one less goal than the opponent". Playing defensive football with no intention on opening up and playing for that 0:0 or 1:0 win.

Nothing in the rules specifies you can't do that, but you bet your *** pretty much all casual viewers complain about it.

The way I see it at a high level tournament play you use everything and anything not prohibited by the rules to push the game into the direction that suits you. The officials shouldn't punish player's unless they break the rules.

Either change the rules or let players play by the rules

Funnily enough, was just thinking the exact same thing, but I'll go one further.

In almost every fully professional sport, the rules are water tight. Yes, things can be missed or called wrongly, but the point is it literally does not matter one bit how clear and tight the rules are. When winning is the absolute primary objective, twisting the rules and being unsporting is so ridiculously common, it's actually the norm. Football is a 'shining' example of this. Pinching, hair tugging, elbow jabbing, shirt pulling, you'd be surprised how standard all of this is. It's frankly appalling, once you know how deep it goes.

In short, if someone wants to win at all costs and is willing to stoop low, there's no rule that will stop them doing so.

Back to this game, there was nothing unsporting involved at all. The Viper player even told his opponent what his strategy was, which is incredibly sporting of him.

The Republic player then happily opted into it and, as we're told, they both enjoyed themselves with it.

However, if he wasn't happy with it, he would not have opted in and the game would have played out very differently. He would have accepted that he needed to risk losing in order to gain a chance of winning and offered openings to the Vipers. In short, it would have been a perfectly normal game of X Wing!

Changing anything in the rules to prevent this situation is running the risk of turning JOUST ME BRO into more than a meme. Personally, I think there's more than enough of that already.

You don't like this style of play, don't opt in, accept that your preference involves risk and play the game you came to play, win or lose. It'll be fine.

Maybe just risk smarter.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

You seem more against the idea of judge intervention foundationally.

To some extent. Is that odd, though?

I don't think it's that wrong to think that how players play a game ought to be decided by players. If folks are setting dials, performing actions, and making decisions at a decent pace, if folks aren't being jerks at the table, I just don't think there's grounds to intervene.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

Aces moving around a table are advancing a board state.

Not necessarily, though. Again, if aces circled for literally all but the last 10 minutes, is that good? Is that actually advancing anything? I don't really think so.

That's clearly not most games, but the SoCal Hyperspace final isn't most games either.

//

8 hours ago, DR4CO said:

Running for time at the end of the game is acceptable (good might be too strong a word)

Well put.

I'll also agree that there are imbalances in the tiebreak rules. But I think the right way for it to be addressed is by changing the tiebreak rules. That's not something a judge can just do, however, and FFG is often incredibly slow to adapt to problems. All rules are ultimately neither RAW or RAI, but Rules-As-Community, and the community has to have a playable game. But I think this really ought to be a last resort. I know all X-Wing scenes are different, but it hasn't been a problem where I am, and I don't recall more than a very few stream games where it was a real problem. But other folks have bigger scenes.

I think there's certainly an extent to which hovering around can be used in an unhealthy way. But the flip side is that all these tactics can be used to an extent which isn't unhealthy. Hover (or just 1-forward to victory) one turn or two to see which direction your opponent breaks, then adjust your approach. Circle a few turns, so that a rock gets in the way of your opponent's turn in against you. Scatter a few turns. And there's an extent to which any of these can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. Once again, if aces circled for two full hours that would also be as trash as two lists K-Turning in their deployment zones for two hours. I just think the length of time matters more than the particular means of filling that time.

If the opposition to excessive mobile fortressing wasn't only about mobile fortressing, but every unhealthy extreme of tactics which are acceptable in moderation, I'd feel a lot better about it.

4 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

The Republic player then happily opted into it and, as we're told, they both enjoyed themselves with it.

I heard the players who played Looping Chewie for the Adepticon final enjoyed themselves as well. Doesn't mean something's not wrong.

Quote

You don't like this style of play, don't opt in, accept that your preference involves risk and play the game you came to play, win or lose. It'll be fine. 

Maybe just risk smarter.

Republic player, if he doesn't run Sinker off the board, still wins that trade somewhere between 65-70% of the time. Up from his 59% final salvo. So congrats on the Viper player for forcing a WORSE end game, and pulling it off? Definitely not Risking smarter.

Percentage to do atleast 3 damage to a viper: 21% (25 pts)

Percentage to kill a viper: 1% (50 pts)

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=BAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQAAAAMAAAAA&a2=IQgAAAMAAAAA&a3=IQgAAAMAAAAA

Percentage to do atleast 3 damage to a torrent: 50% (13 pts)

Percentage to kill a torrent 11% (25 pts)

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAAAAAA&a2=MQgAAAAAAAAA&a3=MQgAAAAAAAAA

Luminara is cancelled by the focus, and assuming the torrents focus a viper that had to spend its focus.

If the vipers do ps kill a torrent, the torrents still have a 10% chance of halving a viper. Granted that flips the final salvo dice, but that's math I don't care to figure out.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Not necessarily, though. Again, if aces circled for literally all but the last 10 minutes, is that good? Is that actually advancing anything? I don't really think so.

That's clearly not most games, but the SoCal Hyperspace final isn't most games either .

This is actually a really important point. I had assumed this "mobile-fortressing" tactic was the only way Mitch won. But he got rushed/charged by his opponent in the majority of his games, and even lost one where his opponent pincered his corner. I think a discussion about tactics for dealing with a mobile-fortress may do more to dissuade its use than changing rules or relying on marshall intervention. Because I can almost guarantee that if one of those players dove into the opponent's zone of "fortress" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Most squads, by my estimation, do not benefit from staying in the corner and waiting to be attacked (but most squads can't do it and keep their arcs pointed the correct way either).

Now I'm going to backpedal a bit. Mitch is flying 4 generics. Guess how my StarVipers he lost in 9 games of X-wing this weekend...

Five. 5 generic ships in 9 games! Now, I really wish all his games were recorded because I would like to know how to do that. Unless he did just mobile-fortress for each game. To me, that seems like the only way you can get through nine games with generics and only lose five. Or maybe he's just that good? That's something the community needs to discuss by examining his strategy/tactics.

One huge party of his strategy is to keep his fighters' backs to the board edge so when the opponent finally closes, they are unable to K-turn or they will fly off the board, and the mobile StarVipers are then able to maneuver for uncontested shots. But sitting in the corner and waiting for the opponent can often take more time than of both players flying up to engage. So is he stalling for time or exploiting a tactic that uses the obstacles and board edge to his advantage? To me, it's not easy to discern, buy maybe you guys have strong feelings one way or the other would like to share.

P.S. I totally agree with the statement that if this was really a problem, it should have been brought up in regards to TIE phantoms a long time ago.

EDIT: Pot Shot just corrected me, he lost six StarVipers, not five.

17 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

P.S. I totally agree with the statement that if this was really a problem, it should have been brought up in regards to TIE phantoms a long time ago.

It was. It has been. Iann Hamp said, flat out, he wished he'd expressed his conclusion on this earlier. There are numerous mentions of developers moving through large events and saying, "This is a problem."

This solution didn't just come out of nowhere. (Among other people, I've been advocating using the sportsmanship rules for things like fortressing and abuse of TL rules since well before 2E. My understanding is that Paul expressed how he was going to handle it well before Riverside.) It only feels like it came out of nowhere because this was a high-profile streamed game in which even the streamers took an hour break, knowing the players would not be playing the game. It just got put in the spotlight, and for that reason high-profile players and judges took the opportunity to express how they've felt for however long.

Should it have been earlier? Maybe. I wouldn't argue against that. But lots and lots and lots of things should have been fixed earlier than they have been, in much more important things than X-Wing. (And more are still waiting.) It seems pretty nonsensical to imply that if it weren't fixed earlier, it couldn't "really" have been a problem.

41 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It was. It has been. Iann Hamp said, flat out, he wished he'd expressed his conclusion on this earlier. There are numerous mentions of developers moving through large events and saying, "This is a problem."

This solution didn't just come out of nowhere. (Among other people, I've been advocating using the sportsmanship rules for things like fortressing and abuse of TL rules since well before 2E. My understanding is that Paul expressed how he was going to handle it well before Riverside.) It only feels like it came out of nowhere because this was a high-profile streamed game in which even the streamers took an hour break, knowing the players would not be playing the game. It just got put in the spotlight, and for that reason high-profile players and judges took the opportunity to express how they've felt for however long.

Should it have been earlier? Maybe. I wouldn't argue against that. But lots and lots and lots of things should have been fixed earlier than they have been, in much more important things than X-Wing. (And more are still waiting.) It seems pretty nonsensical to imply that if it weren't fixed earlier, it couldn't "really" have been a problem.

Touche. As soon as I added the PS, I regretted it. It's a logical fallacy. Please don't disregard the rest of my post.

1 hour ago, Parakitor said:

This is actually a really important point. I had assumed this "mobile-fortressing" tactic was the only way Mitch won. But he got rushed/charged by his opponent in the majority of his games, and even lost one where his opponent pincered his corner. I think a discussion about tactics for dealing with a mobile-fortress may do more to dissuade its use than changing rules or relying on marshall intervention. Because I can almost guarantee that if one of those players dove into the opponent's zone of "fortress" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Most squads, by my estimation, do not benefit from staying in the corner and waiting to be attacked (but most squads can't do it and keep their arcs pointed the correct way either).

Now I'm going to backpedal a bit. Mitch is flying 4 generics. Guess how my StarVipers he lost in 9 games of X-wing this weekend...

Five. 5 generic ships in 9 games! Now, I really wish all his games were recorded because I would like to know how to do that. Unless he did just mobile-fortress for each game. To me, that seems like the only way you can get through nine games with generics and only lose five. Or maybe he's just that good? That's something the community needs to discuss by examining his strategy/tactics.

One huge party of his strategy is to keep his fighters' backs to the board edge so when the opponent finally closes, they are unable to K-turn or they will fly off the board, and the mobile StarVipers are then able to maneuver for uncontested shots. But sitting in the corner and waiting for the opponent can often take more time than of both players flying up to engage. So is he stalling for time or exploiting a tactic that uses the obstacles and board edge to his advantage? To me, it's not easy to discern, buy maybe you guys have strong feelings one way or the other would like to share.

P.S. I totally agree with the statement that if this was really a problem, it should have been brought up in regards to TIE phantoms a long time ago.

EDIT: Pot Shot just corrected me, he lost six StarVipers, not five.

To be fair @Crimsonwarlock didn’t kill that many ships either throughout the day. If he went 4-2 he’d miss the cut fairly easily. This list plays much different than most generic lists that are satisfied for trading 1 for 1.

Nope, there is no fortressing, just players who refuse to leave their deployment zone so they 1-2 turn in a circle to make sure they don't go anywhere.

You know what we need, Cruise missiles, something that is a bit of a long spike to throw into another player at long range. You know what else would also help, Trajectory simulator. Those close groups of fighters are just prime targets for bombs and aoe attacks.

3 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

You know what else would also help, Trajectory simulator. Those close groups of fighters are just prime targets for bombs and aoe attacks.

Diamond Boron Missiles are coming up, and I honestly wouldn't mind if TrajSim got a minor points reduction. 3 was too low. 10 seems too high. Would 6-7 be fine?

9 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Nope, there is no fortressing, just players who refuse to leave their deployment zone so they 1-2 turn in a circle to make sure they don't go anywhere.

You know what we need, Cruise missiles, something that is a bit of a long spike to throw into another player at long range. You know what else would also help, Trajectory simulator. Those close groups of fighters are just prime targets for bombs and aoe attacks.

Seriously, I'd love to see a remote-missile that could be fired from across the map and hit in a later round.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

Seriously, I'd love to see a remote-missile that could be fired from across the map and hit in a later round.

They have remotes and fuses for bombs, maybe they can combine the two into some crazy IED that can hunt down a target, range 1 effect, maybe have 3? fuse tokens, or even increase the cost the more fuse tokens you buy with it? No idea, just spit balling.