Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The_Brown_Bomber

Auto bumping your own ships. Good or Bad for the game?

Recommended Posts

Frankly, this is the first time I have ever seen or heard of a fortress winning a game and even in this instance Richard didn't win with the fort he won by engaging successfully and destroying a TIE fighter.  I have also never met a player at any of the top tables who had the slightest concern about it.  It just isn't a good enough tactic to be a problem, and the only reason it became one here is because one guys attempt to face it didn't pan out and a whole bunch of people immediately over-reacted.  By those standards, we should be trying to ban Jan Ors because she defeated my two Phantoms, never mind that any sort of sane analysis says she is hardly the monster shark killer of X-Wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still amused that those that think the Fortress is any different than moving up and down the edges.

 

It is, by moving along the edges, your rival can time its approach to catch you in the middle of the process of turning, or out of your firing arcs. Also if your are moving along the edge, your opponent has more vectors of approach.

 

By fortressing you keep most of your arcs of fire, if not all, pointed at the enemy, ready to fire on your terms or break formation in the most convenient way to you. By fortressing inmobile in the corner, you also eliminate most angles of approach from your opponent.

Edited by Jehan Menasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still amused that those that think the Fortress is any different than moving up and down the edges.

 

Because an astute opponent can then time their attack run to engage you when you have K-turned, are stressed and facing the wrong way? how on earth can you possibly think its the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still amused that those that think the Fortress is any different than moving up and down the edges.

 

Moving up and down the edges doesn't break the maneuver mechanic and it forces the opponent to turn: you can't cover your back with the edge of a board by flying in circles. It's very different from fortressing. If you don't think there's any difference between a TIE defender white-King every turn and a fortress then you clearly don't understand the details of the fortress tactic and if my prior explanation failed to convey the difference I'm not sure I can explain it to you without the aid of pictures.

 

Frankly, this is the first time I have ever seen or heard of a fortress winning a game and even in this instance Richard didn't win with the fort he won by engaging successfully and destroying a TIE fighter.

He won by running down the clock as the opponent didn't want to engage the fortress and then nabbing a TIE in the last five minutes. Had he not arranged his ships in a fortress they would have had to move, which means the game would have played normally and the other player would have engaged him.

Edited by TIE Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all realize the point of going up and down is to wait and see the opponent commit, right? By all accounts, that is what Richard did as well. He broke the Fortress the moment his opponent committed, in order to get that last minute shot. This is what Typo did in his broadcast game.

 

The Falcon (or should be called the Turreted Fortress) is perfectly fine staying put. The others we have seen have weaknesses in their firing arc coverage. But, you know, "spirit of the game" and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overlapping ships is something that players should actively avoid...

Why? Overlapping as a strategy has been part of the game ever since the early days when the first people figured out that academy pilots are great at controlling maneuvering options and denying actions. There was never a time when everyone thought that overlapping is always something to avoid instead of simply being an event that may happen and have benefits and drawbacks depending on the details of the situation.

In a way, he is cheating the rule by obtaining an advantage greater than the penalty.

How exactly is that cheating? The rules don't specify "the penalty for bumping is worse than the gain, so don't do it", they just tell you what the penalty for bumping is and allow you to decide for yourself whether to try to bump or avoid bumping. This is no more "cheating the rule" than deciding that an upgrade card gives you an advantage that is greater than the penalty for taking it (the point cost) and using that upgrade card.

 

"According to the overlapping rules, if the ship performing the maneuver is returned to its starting position, it suffers one damage."

So if I set up a good block against your ship with my block ORS I get to keep you from moving AND deny your action AND damage you? Do you really not see how this is a terrible idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Fortressing break anything again? It uses both the maneuvers and blocking rules available to execute a last ditch defense to cover a weakness. Pretty darn brilliant gaming.

 

The blocking rules are meant to act as a penalty for the blocked ship (losing your action step) not to obtain a strategical advantage.

 

It is not brilliant gaming. Its plain and simply using a rule to obtain an effect not intended (lack of movement for a ship).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Fortressing break anything again? It uses both the maneuvers and blocking rules available to execute a last ditch defense to cover a weakness. Pretty darn brilliant gaming.

 

The ships are designed to have to move every turn (they're flying through space) and the game is built around that. Why do you think the zero on the Lambda is red?

 

I'd call it an exploit myself and I firmly believe had FFG seen it during development they'd have taken steps to prevent it (they didn't notice normal ship blocking or the disadvantage of initiative either when designing the game). It's legal though and thus people can use it.

 

Finding it's fairly clever but in FFG's own words it's a "negative play experience" for the opponent, and thus its proliferation is very much against their interests.

 

You all realize the point of going up and down is to wait and see the opponent commit, right?

Okay, I'll put this another way.

 

Do you believe if Richard had flown up and down Typo-style that game would have played out in exactly the same way?

Edited by TIE Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard didnt wait til Joshua committed by ANY account. Richard waited til the 5 minute warning sounded, then desperately scrambled to kill a ship. Joshua then committed to the fight instead of flying away and gave Richard the chance he needed to get a win. Acting like Richard performed some brilliant strategy is a stretch and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not be uncharitable here, Richard's strategy was both within the rules and pretty **** creative. You can't fault him for using legal tactics to win a game, especially one in the final rounds of Worlds. I believe FFG should take steps to prevent fortress tactics for the betterment of the game but you can't fault players for using them in a competitive event while they're still legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I and i've yet to fault Richard for that. It was creative in that he created an effective situation for himself, and if he had Initiative Joshua would have had a bit of dilemma since he'd be obligated to fly into the teeth of Richard killbox. There'd still be the issue of whether ships designed to move forward constantly in a game should be able to stall out indefinitely, and thats the core argument here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: "Staying in a corner for 45+ minutes, not moving" = "creative" and "brilliant".

 

If these are the best "tactics" that "creative" and "brilliant" players can come up with at the Worlds Finals, then the future of this game is pretty bleak.

Edited by FTS Gecko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Overlapping ships is something that players should actively avoid...

Why? Overlapping as a strategy has been part of the game ever since the early days when the first people figured out that academy pilots are great at controlling maneuvering options and denying actions. There was never a time when everyone thought that overlapping is always something to avoid instead of simply being an event that may happen and have benefits and drawbacks depending on the details of the situation.

In a way, he is cheating the rule by obtaining an advantage greater than the penalty.

How exactly is that cheating? The rules don't specify "the penalty for bumping is worse than the gain, so don't do it", they just tell you what the penalty for bumping is and allow you to decide for yourself whether to try to bump or avoid bumping. This is no more "cheating the rule" than deciding that an upgrade card gives you an advantage that is greater than the penalty for taking it (the point cost) and using that upgrade card.

 

"According to the overlapping rules, if the ship performing the maneuver is returned to its starting position, it suffers one damage."

So if I set up a good block against your ship with my block ORS I get to keep you from moving AND deny your action AND damage you? Do you really not see how this is a terrible idea?

 

 

Yes blocking YOUR OPPONENT has a strategic use (denying its action). You are using the mechanic of blocking to penalize your rival. Which is its intended use... penalize. That's a valid strategic use, and the rule is performing the role for which it was intended.

 

A whole different matter is using the rule ON YOURSELF to gain the advantage of Zero momevent. In other words, not using it for its intented purpose, but to gain and advantage that, since you choose do it, it is because you considered in the first place that the benefit outweights the penalty.

 

The upgrades that give an advantage in exchange for a disadvantage are designed for the advantage to be slightly better than the disadvantage, in order to promote its use. In those cases, the disadvantage acts more as a 'price' for using the advantage, but their use as advantage is part of its intended purpose from the beggining. Sometimes, even the price is considered too high by the community which leads to not using the card (IE: Saboteur, Expose)

 

However, with overlapping, the rule rule is not formulated: "Ok, you lose your action step, but in exchange you get this...". No. Overlapping is simply a punitive rule. Like hitting an asteroid. There shouldn't be any benefits associated with it.

 

And regarding to my proposed rule... According to your definition of strategy, if you set up a perfect block, so your opponent is unable to move even a milimeter from its original spot, not only the blocking rule is performing as intended (as a penalty for the blocked) but you are also an excellent strategist, so what's the problem?

Edited by Jehan Menasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a valid strategic use, and the rule is performing the role for which it was intended.

Why do you assume that blocking has an intended purpose? The rules don't say "this is a bad thing, try to do it to your opponent and never allow it happen to your own ships", they just tell you what happens when you overlap another ship. The only "intent" here is coming from your own assumptions.

 

And regarding to my proposed rule... According to your definition of strategy, if you set up a perfect block, so your opponent is unable to move even a milimeter from its original spot, not only the blocking rule is performing as intended (as a penalty for the blocked) but you are also an excellent strategist, so what's the problem?

The problem is that it's a significant boost to common blocking ships (academy pilots, ORS, etc). These ships are already very effective in their intended role, and there is no reason for them to gain free damage. You're screwing with balance issues on a bunch of unrelated stuff just because of your personal opinion that something "wasn't intended".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, now we are complaining about blocking?  An enormous amount of the strategy for both of my two Worlds builds (Rebel Convoy) are predicated on blocking.  Blocking is completely valid, both your opponent's ships and your own.

 

Remember the shuttle?  It went for "OMG this is OP" on the forums, to "OMG this is completely useless", back finally to "this is a decent ship".  Good shuttle play absolutely requires blocking your own ships in order to get the maximum "stop time".  Good Swarm play often requires "leapfrogging" a second rank over the first in order to cause bumps into your own ships, as opposed to bumping an opponents ships and being unable to shoot them.  The single most important reason to run Howlrunner is that she is able to make you effective when you lose actions, and the best way to do that is to control when and where you lose those actions.

 

At any sort of even reasonably high-level play the bump is an enormous and indispensable tool used to control position of your ships and your opponents ships, who can shoot at who, and what dice have modification available.  You might as well force all ships to have identical stat lines as to attempt to remove blocking from the game.

 

It is not only working as intended, it is an absolutely essential part of the give and take in X-Wing.  It gives the game enormous depth that it wouldn't otherwise have.  Removing it would be like removing all the black squares on a chessboard.

Edited by KineticOperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a valid strategic use, and the rule is performing the role for which it was intended.

Why do you assume that blocking has an intended purpose? The rules don't say "this is a bad thing, try to do it to your opponent and never allow it happen to your own ships", they just tell you what happens when you overlap another ship. The only "intent" here is coming from your own assumptions.

 

And regarding to my proposed rule... According to your definition of strategy, if you set up a perfect block, so your opponent is unable to move even a milimeter from its original spot, not only the blocking rule is performing as intended (as a penalty for the blocked) but you are also an excellent strategist, so what's the problem?

The problem is that it's a significant boost to common blocking ships (academy pilots, ORS, etc). These ships are already very effective in their intended role, and there is no reason for them to gain free damage. You're screwing with balance issues on a bunch of unrelated stuff just because of your personal opinion that something "wasn't intended".

 

 

My assumptions comes from the fact that the overlapping rule has only negative consecuences. So it's pretty safe to assume that its intended purpose is just penalizing overlapping other ships. Any other use, specially if it provides a benefit, falls out of its intended use.

 

 

No one is complaining about blocking. Blocking is forcing your opponents to overlap you in order to trigger the negative consequences of the overlapping rule on them.

 

People is complaining about 'Fortressing'. Fortressing is using the overlapping rule on yourself to gain the advantage of Zero movement, which can be strategically more important in a given moment than losing your action.

Edited by Jehan Menasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: "Staying in a corner for 45+ minutes, not moving" = "creative" and "brilliant".

 

If these are the best "tactics" that "creative" and "brilliant" players can come up with at the Worlds Finals, then the future of this game is pretty bleak.

I thought it was a lot more creative than flying yet another Fat Han or TIE swarm. He wasn't turtled up for the whole tourney, so it was a specific gambit designed to fight a specific ship, at the cost of having either zero or one action for your 4-ship squad.

From Jimbo's write-up both here and on TC, it sounds like the biggest problem was that Richard allowed himself to get way too excited by the prospect of his build, which led to him being a bit of a sore winner. I know the guy, and he does have a tendency to get caught up in the moment at tourneys, but I don't think it was malicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of blocking and Lambdas, I seem to recall Dom doing a lot of self-blocking with his shuttles to create kill zones. One shuttle greens into another, which greens into another, which greens into the guy he was already bumped with. It allows him to split the targets' fire while creating masses of areas that they just couldn't fly through. It was essential to his win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first thing is that I'm sure it has been said by now BUT the imperial player had initiative and would have won the game if nothing happened so he didn't bother to try and attack the corner. Richard came out to kill a tie to win the game. This is no worse than Paul Heaver flying in circles and talking about how he needs to win on time.

People play around the rules they are given and there is nothing wrong here. The worst is a stalling player or an opponent who runs and wins on time. I don't see the controversy since purposeful bumping is done all the time. Also why does no one talk about how many time Richard did this all day? No one has mentioned if he did this every single game or only on this one. Paul Heaver beat Richard at Gencon because rounds were shorter and he ran away. Why wasn't Paul crucified?

Looks like a mountain out of a mole hill to me. Wasn't unfair or game breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of blocking and Lambdas, I seem to recall Dom doing a lot of self-blocking with his shuttles to create kill zones. One shuttle greens into another, which greens into another, which greens into the guy he was already bumped with. It allows him to split the targets' fire while creating masses of areas that they just couldn't fly through. It was essential to his win.

 

That was exactly my point, I probably should have elaborated on it.  Dom is easily the best shuttle flyer I have faced, and a large part of his play requires managing collisions.  This isn't "low skill" or "not in the spirit" sort of play, it is great play from a great player and essential to his list (and the game as a whole).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of- Shuttles are obviously intended to stall as part of their design. Its evidenced by their dial, which has the only 0 move in the game, and the rest of the dial, which doesn't promote rapid movement, and instead a more come-at-me flight tactic. This can be fixed to a certain degree with EU, but still leaves it a bit short compared to most other ships. Saying that its okay for entire flights of ships to self stall indefinitely because the shuttle is designed to self stall occasionally is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumptions comes from the fact that the overlapping rule has only negative consecuences. So it's pretty safe to assume that its intended purpose is just penalizing overlapping other ships. Any other use, specially if it provides a benefit, falls out of its intended use.

Again, you ASSUME that this is true. And you're not even right about the fact that it only has negative consequences. Why is losing your action defined as a consequence, but not completing your maneuver isn't a consequence? It sounds like all that's happening here is that you've decided how you think the game should work and defined anything else as an "exploit" even when your position isn't at all supported by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...