1 maneuvers with big ships

[TGO 84]

Yup, probably another stupid question. I play X Wing for fun but my group is starting to take it more seriously and I rarely read the forums for this game (I am a big SWLCG player and spend most of my energy focusing on that) so my game knowledge is a bit limited at the moment.  Again, sorry if this is a stupid question and has been answered multiple times in the past.

 

If I have x2 Falcons ( or Shuttles and Firesprays) and I put them nose to nose and keep doing the 1 or 2 forward forward manuever the whole game is that legal?  

[dbmeboy 807]

It is legal, though not very fun.

[Buhallin 4,563]

Perfectly legal.  Debates continue to rage over the cheesiness and effectiveness of the tactic, but so long as you're following all the rules (i.e. losing actions, etc) there's nothing against the rules with it.

[dbmeboy 807]

Tactic is also not limited to large ships... you could do it with a pair of Y-Wings and/or HWK-290s.

[TGO 84]

This topic had come up at the wave 4 preveiw tournaments and someone had said that you could complain to a judge and that they could warn/punish you for abusing the rules of the game. I am just curious if thats true or not.

 

 

We flew it a couple of times the other day to see how good it is and it went 2-0. There were points in both games where I had to break out of the formation or I was going to lose. First game, didnt lose a single ship but my buddy adapted for game 2 and was able to destroy Lando but not before he lost his 2 B-Wings and his Falcon was heavily damaged and my Chewbacca had 3 shields left.   

[VanorDM 11,599]

you could complain to a judge and that they could warn/punish you for abusing the rules of the game.

TO/Judges are in a way a lot like a DM/GM in a RPG. They can to a point do what ever they want, but if they get it wrong enough no one will show up to events that they run.

So yes I suppose a TO could kick you for using the YT Fortress, but they'd be getting it wrong if they did, because FFG has commented on this and said it's ok with them, but that they might change that if they feel it's needed.

[TGO 84]

Thanks guys.

[dbmeboy 807]

I have a feeling the 4x Blue w/ Adv Sensors I ran at the Imdur Alpha tournament would chew through this pretty easily.  Even with Lando to give Chewbacca an action (and I assume PtL to make that 2 actions) the maximum damage output is still pretty limited.  Swarms flown well could similarly put out a ton of damage against the Falcon fortress.  I suspect a Z-95 swarm could also put a serious dent in it as they make it much harder to take out a ship with a single shot.

[Sergovan 1,440]

The term used for this kind of maneuvering is called fortressing. I've sent in an e-mail to FFG about it. They are aware of the tactic and have not yet taken any action against it. If it does get too out of hand they might produce a ruling but it isn't a problem from their viewpoint. Yet.

 

I've written a thread about this kind of tactic.

 

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/102859-yt-fortress-build-what-it-is-and-how-to-defeat-it/?hl=fortress

[Sergovan 1,440]

I'm now curious to see how C3PO will affect a YT Fortress build. 

[Sergovan 1,440]

Has anyone played against  a Fortress build? Did you win/lose? How did it go?

[Buhallin 4,563]

This topic had come up at the wave 4 preveiw tournaments and someone had said that you could complain to a judge and that they could warn/punish you for abusing the rules of the game. I am just curious if thats true or not.

 

It is actually well within their rights to do so.

 

TOs have explicit, full, and total latitude for determining what is considered unsportsmanlike play or abusing the rules.  The community has had some rousing discussions on this front for everything from flying ships with incorrect paint schemes to the sportsmanship of highly defensive play.

 

If you plan to use a particular tactic that you know the community is divided on, your best bet is to check with the TO beforehand to see if it's something they'll take exception to.  Far better to know in advance and adjust your list than get into a debate mid-game.

[Buhallin 4,563]

And before we get into it: Can we PLEASE skip the debate over whether this is unsportsmanlike?  It's obviously legal, but unsportsmanlike play pretty much covers things that you can do but shouldn't.  It's going to be a highly personal view, and honestly we really don't need another round of that just now.

 

Let's just stick to the base facts: It's a legal move.  Many players consider it abusive or unsportsmanlike play.  Whether it is or not is a determination which lies entirely in the hands of an individual TO.

[mege 98]

Following the rules isn't unsportsmanlike. There isn't even some insignificant loophole that's being abused. Pure and simple fortress tactics are a part of the game. Why does it come up when YT-1300s do it but it's a game when people try to do the same with a pair of shuttles and Yorr?

 

Complaining about a tactic that doesn't stretch the rules in any regard is more unsportsmanlike IMO than fortressing.

[DraconPyrothayan 6,107]

It is a viable tactic, but it is by no means a repeatable one. They're sacrificing mobility and actions for the ability to... possibly focus-fire if the enemy lets them.

 

Contrast with the ability to focus fire by using mobility to your advantage, wherein you do not leave the choice of engagement to your opponent ... and you still get your actions, to boot.

 

Oddly, the 3-Lambda fortress operates with actions available: it just doesn't have a full 360* range on its ships.

[The Amazing Flight Lizard 42]

I'm trying to understand where it's unsportsmanlike. Granted, I've never seen it in action, myself, but it seems that depriving your ships of their action when so many aspects of the game depend on it, is more of a hindrance than anything else.

How is this really effective on the field? You don't run the risk of hitting an asteroid I guess, but beyond that, your movement is obviously predictable, you have no action, you're easier to chew up, for one reason or another. What's to stop maybe a pair of bombers (other than you getting your turreted shots on them, I guess) from dropping a couple eggs on you or slamming assault missiles and the like onto you.

There's got to be some advantage I'm not seeing, if this has happened more than once. Somebody help me out here.

[Krynn007 2,445]

The advantages are that the Falcons don't have to move and can shoot all around.

Unlike the other ships who still have to fly around and keep them in their firing arch.

I've never flown against it, but I still don't see how this can win.

I mean you only get 6 attack dice.

[Clayjar 60]

I think it is called the Falcon Fortress or the YT Fortress. Can be hard to attack, but since both YTs have no action, they can be destroyed by focus fire.

 

One tactic is to have all your ships "crash" into one Yt-1300 so it can' t shoot them and focus fire on the other less powerful YT-1300. So if it is Han Solo and Chewbacca, crash into Han solo and destroy chewie.

[DraconPyrothayan 6,107]

I think it is called the Falcon Fortress or the YT Fortress. Can be hard to attack, but since both YTs have no action, they can be destroyed by focus fire.

 

One tactic is to have all your ships "crash" into one Yt-1300 so it can' t shoot them and focus fire on the other less powerful YT-1300. So if it is Han Solo and Chewbacca, crash into Han solo and destroy chewie.

Alternatively, if you wish to keep your actions, attack Han from Range 3, but Range 4 from Chewbacca. You've got your actions and a greater defense, but that bonus die will help Han more than it helps you.

[Buhallin 4,563]

Following the rules isn't unsportsmanlike.

Pretty much by definition, unsportsmanlike behavior will follow the rules.  If it's not, it's cheating.  Which may be unsportsmanlike, but you usually just go with the greater offense and call it "cheating" at that point.  Running up the score, as an example, is generally considered unsportsmanlike, but certainly follows the rules.  Most things which professional sports consider "unsportsmanlike conduct" started as legal but frowned upon and had rules put in place to formalize that - not the other way around.

 

Look, I'm not really disagreeing with you about whether it's unsportsmanlike or not.  I think it's a legal tactic, if dull and uninteresting.  Whether it's abusing the rules is another matter.  I tend to think you play the rules as they come out, but I have a hard time thinking that the designers dropped dual Falcons on the board, said "Let's never move these, that'll be fun!" and shipped it.  In a game so very much about maneuver, it seems a rather bad loophole.  It's certainly projecting, but the fact that huge ships take critical damage if they try this, rather than just losing an action, says pretty clearly to me that it's not an officially-endorsed tactic.

 

But regardless, that wasn't my point.  My point was that it truly does not matter whether you happen to think the tactic is brilliant and should be evangelized to everyone who plays to try it, or is the most heinous thing to hit gaming since 1902.  The TO is the final arbiter on it.  If you're going to play in his event, it falls on you to respect those decisions, whether it relates to abusing the rules via the Fortress or stalling by running away for 70 minutes.  You can always choose not to play, but it is by definition impossible, within the rules, for a TO to be wrong about a sportsmanship call.

[mege 98]

Unsportsmanlike conduct is generally something outside the rules of the game, not within the rules. Unsportsmanlike conduct might be an intentional gross misrepresentation of the rules (or trying to convince your opponent of said gross misinterpretation for gain), but you can't really say that unsportsmanlike conduct violations are specifically allowed by the rules.

 

Kicking dirt into someones face in baseball isn't covered by the rules, but it will clearly fall under unsportsmanlike conduct. A clearer example is punt-fakes in the NFL. There's no rule covering that type of play specifically. Is it unsportsmanlike? 

 

Any TO that rules a fortress build as unsportsmanlike is just on a power-trip and looking for a way to dictate the outcome of a game, nothing more. The TO is further out of bounds of the description of unsportsmanlike conduct than the player is that they're attempting to claim is unsportsmanlike. It's just like claiming that avoiding a fight is stalling in that context - stalling in the unsportsmanlike context is purely off the table stalling (taking an extreme amount of time to decide, find/place templates, asking extreme amounts of questions). Unsportsmanlike conduct is dealing with things off the board, not on. Power-trip - that's all it is.

[voidreturn 816]

While it might be a bit cheesy, it's totally within the rules to do so.

 

If I were to face it, I would swoop from the side to get all of my ships to fire on one of them, K-turn, rinse and repeat until one of them is dead. Focus fire at range 1 on a Falcon that cannot take actions is a soon to be dead Falcon. Since neither of them will have actions, they won't be dishing out too much damage either. Clayjar's approach of crashing into one of them is interesting too.

[dbmeboy 807]

Since neither of them will have actions, they won't be dishing out too much damage either.

I doubt that neither of them will have actions... I'd run this strategy with Lando as one of the Falcons and the other with PtL.  Lando gets no actions but the other falcon gets 2.  Add gunners to each.  Still, the maximum damage output is 6 (8 if at range 1 of both) which requires maximum damage rolls from the Falcons and no evades rolled by the opponent.  BBBB, XXXX, BBXX, BBAAX, and TIE swarms (and soon Z-95 swarms) will have higher potential damage and higher average damage.  With the exception of the BBBB build you'll also have more green dice.  Most of those builds have at least comparable total hit points.  It's a gimmicky strategy that will win against people who aren't prepared but is hardly broken.

[VanorDM 11,599]

Any TO that rules a fortress build as unsportsmanlike is just on a power-trip and looking for a way to dictate the outcome of a game, nothing more.

Having a different opinion does not mean they're on a power-trip, and considering there's more then one way to fly a double YT list, they aren't really effecting the outcome of the game.

The TO is further out of bounds of the description of unsportsmanlike conduct than the player is that they're attempting to claim is unsportsmanlike.

Given the nature of being a TO means they can never be wrong about a sportsmanship call. They are the final arbiter of what is or isn't sportsmanship in their events. They are like a DM/GM in a RPG, their say is final and your only option is to either abide by their call or leave.

[rym 211]

 

 

Look, I'm not really disagreeing with you about whether it's unsportsmanlike or not.  I think it's a legal tactic, if dull and uninteresting.  Whether it's abusing the rules is another matter.  I tend to think you play the rules as they come out, but I have a hard time thinking that the designers dropped dual Falcons on the board, said "Let's never move these, that'll be fun!" and shipped it.  In a game so very much about maneuver, it seems a rather bad loophole.  It's certainly projecting, but the fact that huge ships take critical damage if they try this, rather than just losing an action, says pretty clearly to me that it's not an officially-endorsed tactic.

 

Am i missing something yet again? What do you mean by taking critical damage?

 

Edit: Off to find my rulebooks, but knowing Buhallin, Draco, or Wonder, or any number of people on here really, I expect an anwer will be posted up before I can find out for myself...