4 hours ago, catachanninja said:

I suspect the overlap is almost entirely comprised of people in earshot of me when recording

Most of the US is within earshot of you!

Finally fortressing got called out as the unsportsmanlike exploit it has always been, good riddance

"But bombs are mean and unfun, not moving from my deployment zone is a totally fair strategy and I'm actually Napoleon reborn for taking such an high risk approach that's so hard to execute".

It still allows to do at least 2 turns of post deployment bumps while hopefully removing that **** rules loophole (and no, doing koiograns and running in circles isn't the same thing as standing still and bumping ad infinitum)

5 hours ago, Brunas said:

I think they're overpriced for competitive play. I'm not really sure we're supposed to be using generics in the rebel faction though.

Wait, there are other kind of play than competitive? You yankees are full of surprise

Joking aside: what are we supposed to be using in the rebel factions?

Generics are kinda bad (with B-wings as exceptions and maybe Ks, but in their case is mostly because barrage rockets).

The "synergies" feel clunky and expansive while still giving questionable returns for the investment, with the added issue of suffering casualties much more than other not-synergic things (for example if you bring Esege to support the alpha strike of other ships, losing Esege, other than having all the usual inconvenient of losing firepower and points, has the added damage of killing your whole combo meaning what is left on the field worth less).

Named pilots, with the exclusions of the X-wing aces (mostly Luke, Wedge and Thane "definitely not Biggs" Kyrell), are meh at best, although I'm far from having tested all of them (Norra looks promising on paper for example).

I was positively surprised by Han thought: with LW, Ezra and R2D2 he felt like an old Fat Han on hard mode. Which is definitely fun, but I'm not sure is reliable enough for a serious event

3 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

If people are fortressing, it means there are matches so bad that the best way to win is to not engage. This doesn't stop people from not engaging.

This is not the only reason to fortress. Sitting your own corner means that the other guy has to approach you within a 90 degree arc - no flanking, and easy for you to get arcs on them. Also, they have less room behind you so the turn after the first engagement can be awkward for them.

Fortressing was a very good opening for commonwealth defenders, not because they couldn't win the match but because it gave them a favourable engagement away from the rocks and where they couldn't be flanked easily (and because Kturning defenders are super good at fortressing). Of course these rules don't actually stop defender fortressing, so... *shrug*

Still - overall these rules will stop fortressing 95% of the time. That's a good thing. Are the rules perfect? No. They can be improved. Everything is okay guys. Let's celebrate that FFG did move on it.

1 hour ago, Sunitsa said:

Finally fortressing got called out as the unsportsmanlike exploit it has always been, good riddance

"But bombs are mean and unfun, not moving from my deployment zone is a totally fair strategy and I'm actually Napoleon reborn for taking such an high risk approach that's so hard to execute".

Such straw, much man.

The whole next week is going to be such a dumpster fire

55 minutes ago, defkhan1 said:

The whole next week is going to be such a dumpster fire

A: maybe.

2 hours ago, defkhan1 said:

The whole next week is going to be such a dumpster fire

Are you not entertained?

Reading cards is out. Reading Facebook posts on the air is the new hotness!

11 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

Finally fortressing got called out as the unsportsmanlike exploit it has always been, good riddance

"But bombs are mean and unfun, not moving from my deployment zone is a totally fair strategy and I'm actually Napoleon reborn for taking such an high risk approach that's so hard to execute".

It still allows to do at least 2 turns of post deployment bumps while hopefully removing that **** rules loophole (and no, doing koiograns and running in circles isn't the same thing as standing still and bumping ad infinitum)

So I can still do my usually fortress open (when I do fortress) of bumping a turn or two before moving out? That turn or two can make a big difference. From the rules, it sounds like you can't have your entire squad self bump at all (though you can get away with it since a judge needs to give a warning first), but I don't want to be that guy who abuses it that way. I would rather figure out alternative openings then try and bend the rules like that.

Just now, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

So I can still do my usually fortress open (when I do fortress) of bumping a turn or two before moving out? That turn or two can make a big difference. From the rules, it sounds like you can't have your entire squad self bump at all (though you can get away with it since a judge needs to give a warning first), but I don't want to be that guy who abuses it that way. I would rather figure out alternative openings then try and bend the rules like that.

So, after 2 turns of all of your ship overlapping to not move, your opponent can call a judge on you, who can then get a marshal, who can then give you a warning and tell you to clear your moves.

Theoretically, these warnings could add up if you did the double-bump 2x a row for every game, or multiple times a game (staggered).


Key words: all if that player's ships

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

So, after 2 turns of all of your ship overlapping to not move, your opponent can call a judge on you, who can then get a marshal, who can then give you a warning and tell you to clear your moves.

Theoretically, these warnings could add up if you did the double-bump 2x a row for every game, or multiple times a game (staggered).


Key words: all if that player's ships

Good call. I don't think any of my fortressing openings actually had all of my ships bump besides this one I used for a list that was bad anyways. I mostly had 2-3 fortress while my flanker jockeys for position.

Just now, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Good call. I don't think any of my fortressing openings actually had all of my ships bump besides this one I used for a list that was bad anyways. I mostly had 2-3 fortress while my flanker jockeys for position.

the real answer is pure, non-moving fortressing is usually a bad strategy forever: it was merely a tool to see an opponent's commitment.

The new rule stops it in its purest form... which rarely existed.

Right now, in 2.0, there's likely little reason to fortress more than 2 turns anyway, and even that is diminished now that the lambda has a rear arc. But the ability to loophole out of the rule is quite easy.

New fun tournament result... both sides fortress until all ships blow up, resulting in final salvo and eventual departure due to collusion. Did we hit all the misconducts with that one?

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

the real answer is pure, non-moving fortressing is usually a bad strategy forever: it was merely a tool to see an opponent's commitment.

The new rule stops it in its purest form... which rarely existed.

Right now, in 2.0, there's likely little reason to fortress more than 2 turns anyway, and even that is diminished now that the lambda has a rear arc. But the ability to loophole out of the rule is quite easy.

Right now, I think the biggest reason I can think to fortress for a turn or two would be against a formation to see where they commit and that would be with me flying ships that actually take advantage of that. Of course, I can imagine that the correct response to that would to be not commit until I break up my fortress (or just not fly in formation).

57 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Right now, I think the biggest reason I can think to fortress for a turn or two would be against a formation to see where they commit and that would be with me flying ships that actually take advantage of that. Of course, I can imagine that the correct response to that would to be not commit until I break up my fortress (or just not fly in formation).

95% that's why people do it.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

New fun tournament result... both sides fortress until all ships blow up, resulting in final salvo and eventual departure due to collusion. Did we hit all the misconducts with that one?

Aw dang it. How'd I miss this?

"Collision collusion."

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

New fun tournament result... both sides fortress until all ships blow up, resulting in final salvo and eventual departure due to collusion. Did we hit all the misconducts with that one?

Was the intent malicious?

2 minutes ago, delrustymar said:

Was the intent malicious?

Yes. Both sides declared they hated their lists and ordered them into collision courses with themselves to inflict a violent and humiliating end.

3 minutes ago, delrustymar said:

Was the intent malicious?

NEVER FORGIVE NEVER FORGET

There is at least one recorded regional final where the winner fortressed up his way to victory and people applauded him because it was a "fair and legit strategy to face the NPE bombs were"

The ruling is there to try to prevent such nonsense to happen again, not to make a one turn self bump to see where your opponent is going illegal.

1 minute ago, Sunitsa said:

There is at least one recorded regional final where the winner fortressed up his way to victory and people applauded him because it was a "fair and legit strategy to face the NPE bombs were"

This but unironicly

Just now, Sunitsa said:

There is at least one recorded regional final where the winner fortressed up his way to victory and people applauded him because it was a "fair and legit strategy to face the NPE bombs were"

The ruling is there to try to prevent such nonsense to happen again, not to make a one turn self bump to see where your opponent is going illegal.

True.

And it's like 1 case in many, MANY forms of fortressing that are still legal.

Also, as noted, the core issue is not fortressing, but an incentive to engage, mixed with a little bit of massive power imbalance (i.e. losing at the list building stage).

The latter has been greatly (momentarily?) diminished in 2.0.

Also, triple K-Wings were absolutely a horrific problem, and a horrific unfun experience for almost everyone involved.

But sure, let's focus on the fortressing (of a bad list, might I add).

1 minute ago, Sunitsa said:

There is at least one recorded regional final where the winner fortressed up his way to victory and people applauded him because it was a "fair and legit strategy to face the NPE bombs were"

I think "applauded" is the wrong word. It's a terrible way to win, but it was proven the correct strategy and was totally legal.

Had a conversation with my locals about the rules change. Pointed out that it is still possible to just stick to the board edge and k turn and make them come to you. Had multiple people say that they would call a judge on me for doing that so that I can explain why i’m refusing to play the game.

Pointed out that I can then just tell the judge that I have a provable (10-30%) mathematical advantage in final salvo and don’t want to give that up, at which point I ask for a time extension since a judge was called to a completely legal situation so my opponent could belittle me, and they get more time to REEE that I refuse to joust their TIE swarm.

I don’t get the righteous fury some people feel over honor and social contracts in a competitive setting.