10 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I know your comment was in small print but try Tavson out for a few games and you might breakdown that Shuttles not engaging problem. Also you get to practice SuperFree Kylo which is great.

I actually dislike shuttle play entirely, and would rather not.

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

On the fortressing as long as a Judges intentions are communicated clearly at the start of the tournament I am happy to play by their rules. Its their call.

Yep.

12 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Players though....thats another story...there is a significant % of the player base that does not "know it when they see it". They see whatever makes them the victim or lets them be angry.

I think there is a ton of nuance here. Probably a bit more nuance than all the other fuzzy x-wing rules or grey zones that we deal with all the time or have dealt with long enough that they are less fuzzy.

I suspect there's less nuance, or less ambiguity than everyone thinks.

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

For instance, the main focus here has been "technically, it's not fortressing!" and "it's in the rules!" - but part of the issue is, I suspect most of us believe that it not only shouldn't be a rule, but also likely that the devs explicitly wanted to stop the general idea of stalling and not engaging.

We act like we cannot spot it... but we can, and do recognize it. Tryin to say "I was just about to do something different" doesn't actually change anything, nor is it believable.

This is not actually an endictment on players - you can watch two streamed games at atlanta where I k-turn rexlar to block a shuttle. In particular, I did it in one of those games for 4 turns* in a row (more than the 2 times the rules try and note). I'd rather just have the rules enforced, and lose the ability to do this kind of thing if it means so does everyone else, than continue working on "not fortressing' strategies to deal with stuff. But again, that assumes the playing field is level.

I guess what I'm mostly trying to get at is that one of the biggest "They aren't engaging!" ships of 1e was Miranda Doni (and to a lesser extent other regen small-base ships like Corran Horn or Poe), and she does the non-engage in a really different way than 2e Phantoms do the non-engage. The revised half-points rule altered the benefits of fat small-base ships, so the running ace strategy isn't quite as effective as it was, but some kernel of it is still in the game. Coming up with bans on some ways ships choose to non-engage but not other methods feels icky to me (and I play more aces than hovering generics).

I think it's right to rule out full-fortressing, and truly static positions with a really narrow rule. Beyond that, I'm less sure.

I think I'd rather something closer to a shot-clock. I liked in theory some of the objectives that the several podcasters put together, where being in some map zones, being near some objects could accrue victory points. I don't like shrinking-board style timers. But what I like about the broad concept is that it lets players choose their own strategy for engagement and how to deal with objectives or whatnot. I'd much rather the choice rest with the players than the judges.

That is, if we think it's enough of a problem to warrant an adjustment. I'm not fully convinced that it is. I haven't played many games where this sort of stall has been a large factor, and most stream games I've seen don't really feature it. To some extent, this game is an outlier.

mic check one two

Is it time to panic?

Alternately, change Final Salvo. If it was 5-dice for both players, so long as they each had the same number of points destroyed, then it's essentially a coin-flip, but more X-Wing themed and dramatic. Without advantages in the final salvo, the only way to gain an advantage in the game is to outplay your opponent.

I dunno. Haven't thought though all the implications.

15 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I guess what I'm mostly trying to get at is that one of the biggest "They aren't engaging!" ships of 1e was Miranda Doni (and to a lesser extent other regen small-base ships like Corran Horn or Poe), and she does the non-engage in a really different way than 2e Phantoms do the non-engage.

I don't understand what you mean here.

The way I see it, a ship altering the play area with seismics, or placing mines, is absolutely 'engaging' because the player does something. Same for a ship passing by, taking a potshot and then running+regenerating.

A ship decloaking or 1hard+bendyroll in its deploy area (or anyway on a board edge!) is clearly different?

5 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Alternately, change Final Salvo. If it was 5-dice for both players, so long as they each had the same number of points destroyed, then it's essentially a coin-flip, but more X-Wing themed and dramatic. Without advantages in the final salvo, the only way to gain an advantage in the game is to outplay your opponent.

I dunno. Haven't thought though all the implications.

Then players that are at a complete disadvantage with their list will just go for the 50/50 chance of winning.

Some combo of Armada and Runewars style objectives maybe?

Cycle through a fixed list of objectives for each tournament?

2 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Some combo of Armada and Runewars style objectives maybe?

Cycle through a fixed list of objectives for each tournament?

Whoever doesn't choose initiative chooses objectives?

This all sounds very familiar...

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

This all sounds very familiar...

Time to convert all the objectives to 2.0?

Just now, Biophysical said:

Whoever doesn't choose initiative chooses objectives?

So the bid/roll-off looser? Might be because I'm only partially into my second cup of caf, but I is see "Whoever doesn't choose initiative" as possibly being read as the person who passed on first player as well as the one who didn't get the choice...

6 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Alternately, change Final Salvo. If it was 5-dice for both players, so long as they each had the same number of points destroyed, then it's essentially a coin-flip, but more X-Wing themed and dramatic. Without advantages in the final salvo, the only way to gain an advantage in the game is to outplay your opponent.

I dunno. Haven't thought though all the implications.

Agree. Having an advantage at final salvo can only encourage non engagement for certain match ups. An unweighted coin toss is basically the only fair way to settle a stalemate.

Personally don't think there's any need to make actual gameplay changes to prevent this sort of situation occurring. The root cause of this one was simply that neither player was prepared to take a risk in changing the game state.

In any type of fairly matched contest, if both players refuse to take even the smallest gamble, you have a stand-off.

It requires opt in on both sides, in which case, leave them to it and go do something more interesting instead!

8 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

Then players that are at a complete disadvantage with their list will just go for the 50/50 chance of winning.

Fair point. But if they are at a complete disadvantage, do they have a good chance of making it to Final Salvo? Genuine question.

Just now, Biophysical said:

Whoever doesn't choose initiative chooses objectives?

That works well in Armada because of the importance of first/second player there, but in plenty of X-Wing matchups player order is mostly ignorable.

24 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I guess what I'm mostly trying to get at is that one of the biggest "They aren't engaging!" ships of 1e was Miranda Doni (and to a lesser extent other regen small-base ships like Corran Horn or Poe), and she does the non-engage in a really different way than 2e Phantoms do the non-engage. The revised half-points rule altered the benefits of fat small-base ships, so the running ace strategy isn't quite as effective as it was, but some kernel of it is still in the game. Coming up with bans on some ways ships choose to non-engage but not other methods feels icky to me (and I play more aces than hovering generics).

This and a lot of other posts basically ask "what about aces avoiding head on engagements", but I don't think that's something anyone considers as being in the same genre as self bumping in a corner or k-turning along a board edge.

1 minute ago, Quack Shot said:

Time to convert all the objectives to 2.0?

Waiting on the epic kit scenarios they mentioned to see 1. if it's even necessary, and 2. if they didn't already just do it themselves. They mentioned non-epic scenarios at the adepticon teaser IIRC

I'm onboard to do it again, and it should be much cooler this time around - despite everyone's complaints and whining, the rules for 2e are MUCH better and well doone, there's some really cool stuff that's now possible that wasn't before because of defined terms like behind, object, flanking, etc.

16 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Alternately, change Final Salvo. If it was 5-dice for both players, so long as they each had the same number of points destroyed, then it's essentially a coin-flip, but more X-Wing themed and dramatic. Without advantages in the final salvo, the only way to gain an advantage in the game is to outplay your opponent.

I dunno. Haven't thought though all the implications.

That only kind of fixes the problem. Let's say legalized fortressing-not-fortressing remains, and I have a better jousting list than you. I can still force you into a 50/50 salvo by fortressing, because you'll never joust me. Basically, why do jousting squads get to have a 50% winrate in their worst matchups?

Might be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, though.

BRING BACK OBJECTIVES

22 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Fair point. But if they are at a complete disadvantage, do they have a good chance of making it to Final Salvo? Genuine question.

Well for instance, I don’t think the 50/50 chance changes that final at all. @Crimsonwarlock would have still engaged last turn to win on points. If they were still even at the last turn I think a 50/50 chance is better than going out in the Open with the Vipers, and Ryan for sure wasn’t going to make it lopsided for Mitch by going into the rocks.

You dont need objectives. You need incentive to engage.

There is a first player token. Most people give it away to move second.

It can be used as "Home Field Advantage".

First Player Token: "If no combat has occurred by end of time in game, a final salvo occurs. The player with First Player token may choose to roll the amount of red dice of his squads printed primary attack dice, or roll 2 more than his opponents squads printed primary attack dice."

Now, doesnt matter if you have 18 red dice vs 6 red dice. If the 6 die player has first player token, and 18 red dice squad does not engage, the 6 red dice player will roll 20 red die in the final salvo, if no combat has taken place, other wise, final salvo is as normal.

This method gives zero advantage to any player as long as the game is actually played. It gives first player the home field advantage, as he has a bit more say in where combat will take place, while the other player has the benefit of moving second.

6 minutes ago, wurms said:

You dont need objectives. You need incentive to engage.

There is a first player token. Most people give it away to move second.

It can be used as "Home Field Advantage".

First Player Token: "If no combat has occurred by end of time in game, a final salvo occurs. The player with First Player token may choose to roll the amount of red dice of his squads printed primary attack dice, or roll 2 more than his opponents squads printed primary attack dice."

Now, doesnt matter if you have 18 red dice vs 6 red dice. If the 6 die player has first player token, and 18 red dice squad does not engage, the 6 red dice player will roll 20 red die in the final salvo, if no combat has taken place, other wise, final salvo is as normal.

This method gives zero advantage to any player as long as the game is actually played. It gives first player the home field advantage, as he has a bit more say in where combat will take place, while the other player has the benefit of moving second.

This doesn’t actually solve the problem of waiting until the last turn and engaging to half-points something.

I’m much more open to a rule amendment that indicates that a failure to leave your deployment zone at 50% of a timed match is fortressing and will result in a match loss. You can’t k-turn down your board edge indefinitely, or use the gunboat racetrack, and tell me you’re not stalling for time.

11 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

This doesn’t actually solve the problem of waiting until the last turn and engaging to half-points something.

I’m much more open to a rule amendment that indicates that a failure to leave your deployment zone at 50% of a timed match is fortressing and will result in a match loss. You can’t k-turn down your board edge indefinitely, or use the gunboat racetrack, and tell me you’re not stalling for time.

you set up to joust after me, I turn to disengage along my board edge, you rush down into my board edge and force me to flip and engage you. you call the judge over halfway through the match because despite being engaged, I haven't left the deployment zone yet.

alternatively, I move one ship out the deployment zone once, then go back in and durdle around. I've moved from my deployment zone.

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

you set up to joust after me, I turn to disengage along my board edge, you rush down into my board edge and force me to flip and engage you. you call the judge over halfway through the match because despite being engaged, I haven't left the deployment zone yet.

alternatively, I move one ship out the deployment zone once, then go back in and durdle around. I've moved from my deployment zone.

It's almost like there really isn't a clear-cut wait to fully write all of this down, and it does, in fact, require a neutral arbiter to assess the not-fortressing...

🤔

But why dont you like Shuttles?

6 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

It's almost like there really isn't a clear-cut wait to fully write all of this down, and it does, in fact, require a neutral arbiter to assess the not-fortressing...

🤔

But how could this work? You'd need a neutral person who is familiar with the game. That person could also be asked to solve other unclear disputes, such as rules understandings, arc checks or bumps and overlaps.

🤔🤔

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

But why dont you like Shuttles?

they're slow, plodding masses that dont turn around, so I need to be "right" far more in advance.

I have little experience playing them, and usually don't enjoy it when I do.