Not a good argument.

You introduce new players with easy to use rules, tactics, and units. Always.

You start with 2 TIE/ln and 1 X-Wing , not Whisper and a swarm vs Corran Horn and Han Solo. You build up rules when you intro new players like you build up tactics.

So you never have a potential player just walk by and check out a game? Or come into a store having heard good things about X-wing, and hey those guys in the back are playing, I'm sure they can help you?

The first experience most players have with the game is watching another game in progress. How would a potential player react if that was the game they watched? How much do you have to build up the rules and tactics until you can explain to them why you think this is OK?

"Gee, i sure do like that bit, during A New Hope, when those 3 X-Wings managed to go nose to nose in the Death Star Trench so they could take multiple shots at that exhaust vent...."

Im honestly sickened by those of you trying to claim that the Imperial Player was at fault for not 'dealing with it'. If you're using a list that Outmaneuvers, you wait to see where your opponent is gonna be, if saw your opponent turtled in a corner, KNOWING he needed to come to you to get the win as you had initiative, you may be wary of a counter attack, you may be reluctant to move in expecting him to be waiting for you. A Phantom is after all easier to deal with if you know its approach and i dont doubt that the idea to just get a cheap Initiative win may have crossed his mind but i give him credit for actually trying to engage his opponent.

I dont fault either players tactics within the written rules. But to start laying into the Imperial player, for actually trying to play the game is BS. And yes, i consider the fortress tactic a game denial tactic. He's still within the rules, but he is deliberately CHOOSING to use those rules to effectively take his units out of the game.

The only problem with this tactic... The ONLY problem... Is that it happens in a corner where magical walls cause ships to explode if they hit them.

So fix the problem, either disallow deploying within r1 of a board side or make the ships want to go to the middle because of an objobjective.

Yes, it is an unfun strategy. But, how is it different from just moving up and down the side of the map? Pretty much waiting for the opponent to make a move first. How about killing a TIE and running away? Movement doesn't necessarily make a strategy more in the "spirit" of the game.

If this was a viable strategy for top tier play, we would've seen it more than we have. We haven't. So, yes, it is an unfun strategy. But, in all honesty, it is pretty bad.

Because by flying up and down the board you at least have to make moves. You CAN potentially make a mistake, you have to take into account that maybe not all your ships have the same movement dial etc.

This is just refusing to play the game.

"Gee, i sure do like that bit, during A New Hope, when those 3 X-Wings managed to go nose to nose in the Death Star Trench so they could take multiple shots at that exhaust vent...."

Im honestly sickened by those of you trying to claim that the Imperial Player was at fault for not 'dealing with it'. If you're using a list that Outmaneuvers, you wait to see where your opponent is gonna be, if saw your opponent turtled in a corner, KNOWING he needed to come to you to get the win as you had initiative, you may be wary of a counter attack, you may be reluctant to move in expecting him to be waiting for you. A Phantom is after all easier to deal with if you know its approach and i dont doubt that the idea to just get a cheap Initiative win may have crossed his mind but i give him credit for actually trying to engage his opponent.

I dont fault either players tactics within the written rules. But to start laying into the Imperial player, for actually trying to play the game is BS. And yes, i consider the fortress tactic a game denial tactic. He's still within the rules, but he is deliberately CHOOSING to use those rules to effectively take his units out of the game.

Listen to yourself you're punishing the guy for trying to deny the strength of the list which is out maneuvering! Whisper alone could beat that list and fly circles around X-wings and a z95 but you'd never say that was unsportsmanlike. How fun is it for an x wing player to constantly be out of arc? Hell yeah part of the game is trying to deny your opponents strengths. It's why people bring swarms against fat hans. It's why people bring whisper against hard hitters like x's and b's and why people bring fat Han against whisper...

Really, having both sides moving up and down the opposing sides of the board is playing the game? Has anyone watched the last game shown yesterday? I fail to see how the fortress is any less fun.

"Gee, i sure do like that bit, during A New Hope, when those 3 X-Wings managed to go nose to nose in the Death Star Trench so they could take multiple shots at that exhaust vent...."

Im honestly sickened by those of you trying to claim that the Imperial Player was at fault for not 'dealing with it'. If you're using a list that Outmaneuvers, you wait to see where your opponent is gonna be, if saw your opponent turtled in a corner, KNOWING he needed to come to you to get the win as you had initiative, you may be wary of a counter attack, you may be reluctant to move in expecting him to be waiting for you. A Phantom is after all easier to deal with if you know its approach and i dont doubt that the idea to just get a cheap Initiative win may have crossed his mind but i give him credit for actually trying to engage his opponent.

I dont fault either players tactics within the written rules. But to start laying into the Imperial player, for actually trying to play the game is BS. And yes, i consider the fortress tactic a game denial tactic. He's still within the rules, but he is deliberately CHOOSING to use those rules to effectively take his units out of the game.

Listen to yourself you're punishing the guy for trying to deny the strength of the list which is out maneuvering! Whisper alone could beat that list and fly circles around X-wings and a z95 but you'd never say that was unsportsmanlike. How fun is it for an x wing player to constantly be out of arc? Hell yeah part of the game is trying to deny your opponents strengths. It's why people bring swarms against fat hans. It's why people bring whisper against hard hitters like x's and b's and why people bring fat Han against whisper...

So by that logic, anyone thats on the bad side of a Rock/Paper/Scissors matchup should forget trying to play the game and look through the rule book for exploits?

Really, having both sides moving up and down the opposing sides of the board is playing the game? Has anyone watched the last game shown yesterday? I fail to see how the fortress is any less fun.

And this is why the best solution is objectives.

Really, having both sides moving up and down the opposing sides of the board is playing the game? Has anyone watched the last game shown yesterday? I fail to see how the fortress is any less fun.

What??? Marching up and down the map ain't good enough for you??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780

So by that logic, anyone thats on the bad side of a Rock/Paper/Scissors matchup should forget trying to play the game and look through the rule book for exploits?

Yup. In a tournament... absolutely. In a casual game just ask your opponent to play something that will make the game fun for you both or (in the case of Phantoms) destroy the offending model/s with a hammer.

Let's be clear. The issue is not the bumping rules allowing the fortress. It is that there is no exterior motivator for engagement.

I personally dont like the tactic.

Feels cowardly, but as far as rules go legit.

Is it am exploit?

If ffg doesn't like it they can errate the rules to state something like

"Setup

Your ships have to set up so that they have to move at least one space and cannot intentionality bump one another"

That I think would be best.

This way if they want to fortress up, the edge of the board is not at their back leaving wiggle roll for their opponent, and so long as ships are moving it's not illegal. So even if you accidentally bump into a ship from the start it still moved and the rules are enforced and not abused

If ship A does a 2 bank and ship B does a 2, collide, but they still moved.

I'm sure ffg would figure something out.

If what someone who is there said true, and ffg didn't seem comfortable with this, expect some new ruling

The issue with that, is that you technically get rid of setting a ship up behind another one.

Like I said, the issue isn't the bumping rules. It is the lack of outside motivators for engagement.

I personally dont like the tactic.

Feels cowardly, but as far as rules go legit.

Is it am exploit?

If ffg doesn't like it they can errate the rules to state something like

"Setup

Your ships have to set up so that they have to move at least one space and cannot intentionality bump one another"

That I think would be best.

This way if they want to fortress up, the edge of the board is not at their back leaving wiggle roll for their opponent, and so long as ships are moving it's not illegal. So even if you accidentally bump into a ship from the start it still moved and the rules are enforced and not abused

If ship A does a 2 bank and ship B does a 2, collide, but they still moved.

I'm sure ffg would figure something out.

If what someone who is there said true, and ffg didn't seem comfortable with this, expect some new ruling

But again... Objectives.

The issue with that, is that you technically get rid of setting a ship up behind another one.

Like I said, the issue isn't the bumping rules. It is the lack of outside motivators for engagement.

Which is what Koshinn was getting at with the objectives comment up above.

What about if a ship bumps another ship you need to roll a damage dice like for asteroids?

What about if a ship bumps another ship you need to roll a damage dice like for asteroids?

Then simply bringing more ships and creating a traffic jam so that your opponent can't help but constantly run into you becomes a tactic that will be even less fun and possibly more viable.

What about if a ship bumps another ship you need to roll a damage dice like for asteroids?

That's known as Anti-Pursuit Lasers. It's a 2 point modification card for large ships.

Is there any valid reason why, other than deliberately trying this, that your ships would be deliberately bumping right off the bat?

How do you determine whether it was deliberate or not? People bump into their own ships even if they are not using the fortress.

Is there any valid reason why, other than deliberately trying this, that your ships would be deliberately bumping right off the bat?

Also formation flying. Which I guess includes the previous paragraph.

I think it would be better if you bump the same ship more than once in a row you start losing evade dice, taking multiple free hits is plenty enough incentive to actually play the game you showed up to play right?

And again, that can easily happen if you are constantly blocked, or make mistakes while moving.

And you should try to avoid overcomplicating the issue. Do you really want to have to keep track of which ship hit which other ship and how many times it's happened, on top of everything else you have to track during a game?

Is there any valid reason why, other than deliberately trying this, that your ships would be deliberately bumping right off the bat?

And how do you determine "valid reason"?

Is there any valid reason why, other than deliberately trying this, that your ships would be deliberately bumping right off the bat?

And how do you determine "valid reason"?

Im not arguing definitions. Im asking why would you deliberately aim to meaneuver where you know you will bump into your own ships?