3 minutes ago, ScruffyNerdHerder said:

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.

I've been argued to death that me putting dials on the board but avoiding combat is not the same as fortressing. You shouldn't have an issue. Further, false reports of you "fortressing" can count as a misconduct by the accuser if they are making a stink... so shouldn't be an issue. You don't have to prove anything.

6 minutes ago, ScruffyNerdHerder said:

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.

The rules are (overly) explicit here, and you aren't breaking them.

If anything, my concern is how very, very narrow the new definition is.

Fortunately, long-term fortressing isn't a particularly useful tactic in 2.0 (yet).

2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Further, false reports of you "fortressing" can count as a misconduct by the accuser if they are making a stink... so shouldn't be an issue. You don't have to prove anything.

Also, this. ^

Can't you see the real issue? THEY'RE MAKING YOU PLAY!

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

The rules are (overly) explicit here, and you aren't breaking them.

If anything, my concern is how very, very narrow the new definition is.

Fortunately, long-term fortressing isn't a particularly useful tactic in 2.0 (yet).

Yeah looking at the rules I’m not concerned about having a judge called on me (and being penalized).

Becasue they are so overly specific, any decloaking phantom bump shenanigans (as an example) are not fortressing.

i hereby suggest an amendment to the tournament rules. “Fortressing is like porn, you know it when you see it”

3 minutes ago, ScruffyNerdHerder said:

“Fortressing is like porn, you know it when you see it”

23 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

24 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

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.

Considering the other posts, I stand behind "applauded" as the right verb: the consensus here is that you'd rather not play the game if you didn't like your opponent list and you had better odds at final salvo...

I don't know, it might be just me, but I always found incredibly flawed that the reaction to a strong archetype was to argue in favour of a cheap exploit

In the end the new rule won't matter much, if someone is really committed to not play, there are plenty of eays to achieve that without falling in the rulebook definition, but I like FFG has finally made clear it isn't encouraged

19 minutes ago, ScruffyNerdHerder said:

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 would refuse the time extension on the grounds that it is clear that you are going to time and an extension only pushes off final salvo, which is to your opponent's advantage and will incentivize them to call me over for no reason more often.

3 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

I would refuse the time extension on the grounds that it is clear that you are going to time and an extension only pushes off final salvo, which is to your opponent's advantage and will incentivize them to call me over for no reason more often.

That’s reasonable. I guess in a situation like this there is no use also antagonizing the judge.

11 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Considering the other posts, I stand behind "applauded" as the right verb: the consensus here is that you'd rather not play the game if you didn't like your opponent list and you had better odds at final salvo...

Your opinion and preference for wording. I see a lot of more cynical laughter at the scenario itself than for it... And the same people here have gone on record as not liking the scenario. Then again, I'm not here to convince you.

21 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

In the end the new rule won't matter much, if someone is really committed to not play, there are plenty of eays to achieve that without falling in the rulebook definition, but I like FFG has finally made clear it isn't encouraged

This is true. I also can't fault you for liking that FFG made it clear that fortressing isn't encouraged.

These fortressing rules have such large loopholes it feels like they only serve to encourage rules lawyers to be more insufferable. I'm hoping this is another situation of them issuing a half-baked ruling and then revising it after the community is awful for a week or two. 2.0 hasn't even been out long enough to assess whether fortressing is a problem. And if it is, rules against fortressing are treating a symptom, not the underlying issue. If players not engaging each-other is perceived to be a problem, then the tournament rules need to reflect that and players will respond appropriately. Objectives would be one solution. You could also alter scoring (say only award points for points destroyed). These rules just add more hassle for judges and not much else.

43 minutes ago, ScruffyNerdHerder said:

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

From a RAW perspective that's totally fine, they narrowly defined fortressing and you're not meeting that definition it. From an RAI perspective this is precisely what they're, with debatable success, attempting to eliminate. They're not trying to stop you from putting your ships in a specific position, they're trying to stop you from intentionally choosing not to play the game and have the result determined by weighted dice results

50 minutes ago, ScruffyNerdHerder said:

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

Honor fine, it's a subjective standard. But social contracts though are by definition an informally negotiated structure and that pushback when they're broken is the feedback mechanism through which that happens. The social contract that said fortressing is bad and the resulting fury over people breaking it is how we ended up with the formal rule today. So they can't be ignored, nor should they since they're also the lubricant that keeps the whole machine moving without the need for a 100 page rulebook

2 minutes ago, Makaze said:

From a RAW perspective that's totally fine, they narrowly defined fortressing and you're not meeting that definition it. From an RAI perspective this is precisely what they're, with debatable success, attempting to eliminate. They're not trying to stop you from putting your ships in a specific position, they're trying to stop you from intentionally choosing not to play the game and have the result determined by weighted dice results

Honor fine, it's a subjective standard. But social contracts though are by definition an informally negotiated structure and that pushback when they're broken is the feedback mechanism through which that happens. The social contract that said fortressing is bad and the resulting fury over people breaking it is how we ended up with the formal rule today. So they can't be ignored, nor should they since they're also the lubricant that keeps the whole machine moving without the need for a 100 page rulebook

much like the social contract pushed back and reflected no 360-turrets, system phase bombs, and other tweaks in 2.0's development...

"But the poor triple k-wings!"

(this is not a social contract, mind you)

1 hour 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"

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.

If you're talking about the austin regional, he actual did that because he was mad about defenders. The final just so happened to be against the creator of bombing k-wings debuting his list as well, and he happened to have the perfect counter for it.

The point wasn't 'fortressing is a valid strategy,' the point was that the game had devolved to the point where he wasn't having fun playing. You don't really see fortressing unless people are unhappy with the game. All FFG has done is made it illegal to sneeze to pretend we don't have the flu.

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

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.

Current state, I don't care about fortressing, have no reason for fortress. I'm worried what will happen if we do hit that level of power imbalance.

a ghost fenn also fortressed against a Nym Sol list (aka "Tower Defense", aka "Bomb Wall") in a finals in a CA regional as well.

At no point can any of us claim the Tower Defense list is playing in good faith, but it's technically not fortressing! weeeeee!

Edit: "in a finals in a CA regional as well."

46 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Considering the other posts, I stand behind "applauded" as the right verb: the consensus here is that you'd rather not play the game if you didn't like your opponent list and you had better odds at final salvo...

If thing I hate A and thing I hate B are put at odds then I can applaud that. But I'm applauding the fact that at least one of them lost not for either A or B

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

a ghost fenn also fortressed against a Nym Sol list (aka "Tower Defense", aka "Bomb Wall").

At no point can any of us claim the Tower Defense list is playing in good faith, but it's technically not fortressing! weeeeee!

its not fortressing if you've built a wall and are marching back and forth behind it waiting for the enemy to break upon the wall of your mighty... piloting?

2 minutes ago, jagsba said:

its not fortressing if you've built a wall and are marching back and forth behind it waiting for the enemy to break upon the wall of your mighty... piloting?

Correkt.

And we should definitely not refer to your ramparts as a fortress. Those bombs were carefully built to create a fun and engaging puzzle for the opponent.

6 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

(this is not a social contract, mind you)

Wasn't it though? List X is technically legal to play but get subtly (or not so subtly) shamed if you do is fairly common. And that then creates a social contract that largely holds up on casual night. We then completely ignore that for competitions but that's because we all expect at least one defector to break the contract, not because it doesn't still exist. 2.0 just formalized a lot of those into the rules by eliminating the things that broke them from the game.

New Fortress Rules In Practice

6 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Wasn't it though? List X is technically legal to play but get subtly (or not so subtly) shamed if you do is fairly common. And that then creates a social contract that largely holds up on casual night. We then completely ignore that for competitions but that's because we all expect at least one defector to break the contract, not because it doesn't still exist. 2.0 just formalized a lot of those into the rules by eliminating the things that broke them from the game.

I mean, in the case of 2.0 development, the designers simply wanted to streamline the game, and bring it back to what 1) what they prefer to design, and 2) a game that increases both players agency, rather than diminish it.

While people laugh at "agency," it's a core design philosophy of most games, and [at least, the appearance of] agency is important for player engagement (which, ultimately, helps sales, as they are a business).

1.0 had increasingly gone away from player/opponent agency: 360 turrets allowed 'always on' shooting, which incentived less-to-no-downside maneuvers since you could always shoot. Adv SLAM was literally inescapable. Autothrusters created meaningless engagements at range 3. The list continues.

Anyway, the point is, the designers listened to the "heart" of what people wanted, not the literal statements (which is correct). But the social contract was hardly being broken, considering the last words was a copious amount of palp somethings, ion control, expertise (actions are for nerds), and super accurate TLTs. Oh, and "damage is the enemy" machinations.

Can we stick to focusing on Rampart?

Looks like they're doing official rules clarifications over here:

Can I Score 111 Points and Leave?

Hera Syndulla (VCX-100) (76)
Composure (2)
Ion Torpedoes (6)
Ion Cannon Turret (6)
Jyn Erso (2)
Perceptive Copilot (10)
Veteran Turret Gunner (8)
Ghost (0)

Fenn Rau (Sheathipede) (52)
Outmaneuver (6)
Kanan Jarrus (14)
Afterburners (8)
R2-D2 (8)
Phantom (2)

Total: 200

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0