Is this rule apply to turnament play?:

"After the last obstacle is placed, the player who does not have initiative chooses an edge of the play area to be his own; his opponent’s edge is the opposite side of the play area."

cheers

I was wrong.

This is different in the tournament rules. You start on one side and stay there.

From the X-Wing Tournament Regulations 2.0

Quote

Game Setup
The following steps must be performed before players can begin their game each tournament round.
1. Each player places their squad outside of the 3’ by 3’ play area next to their assigned player edge.
...

Each player is assigned one edge of the play area. Most of the tournaments I've been to the player's just pick their side before the match starts, but the actual rules call out that each player has an assigned side before any setup even begins.

Totally missed that bit in the tournament regulations. Sorry folks.

13 hours ago, J_Paraszczak said:

Is this rule apply to turnament play?:

"After the last obstacle is placed, the player who does not have initiative chooses an edge of the play area to be his own; his opponent’s edge is the opposite side of the play area."

cheers

NO.

I'd even say it probably shouldn't be used for casual play although there may be a reason to use it there. That reason is that if the person with Initiative is that much better at setting up obstacles then presumably the other player could take advantage of that; in far too many ways its use would encourage the person who starts laying obstacles to be conservative in his approach leading to a more neutral asteroid field.

While it may be on the books if it is used I'd STRONGLY recommend that everyone realizes that before obstacle placement begins. I mean how would you like it if you normally don't play with that rule (play in a lot of tournaments) and have initiative so you start laying out your obstacles with your opponent seeming to HELP your placements only to realize before play starts that you've just been setting up for your own demise?

I guess I'll also add that in tournament play "switching sided" may not always be an easy thing to do especially in a crowded space.

I was wrong about the official ruling earlier. I've retracted my erroneous statement. The following is only my opinion about the rules as they are:

I think the tournament rule should match the Rules Reference.

Does assigning sides in a tournament improve the game itself? No. The side of a table a player keeps cards on doesn't have any relevance to the game state. There is no gameplay reason for a player's assigned side of a table to determine the side of the playmat that player's ships deploy from.

Does adding another layer to set-up strategy improve the game? Yes. Turn 0 is a thing, and making use of the Rules Reference as written would be a great way spice up Turn 0 without the need for new card abilities.

Does adding another element to the initiative bid strategy improve the game? Always yes. Anything that makes Squad building more interesting and important is good for the game.

Should a player be capable of planning maneuvers from any direction? Absolute yes. If starting the game from a direction other than face-forward is enough to ruin your day, then you probably aren't very good at planning maneuvers during the rest of the game either.

3 hours ago, jmswood said:

I was wrong about the official ruling earlier. I've retracted my erroneous statement. The following is only my opinion about the rules as they are:

I think the tournament rule should match the Rules Reference.
...

If that's the case then the Rules Reference is what would most likely need to be changed to remove any trace of that choosing sides later issue.

1. Does assigning sides improve the game? I'd actually say that assigning a side to play from actually DOES improve the game. When all side start equally it doesn't matter and thus it happens very quickly. Knowing where you deploy from makes obstacle placement a LOT more relevant to play as it can mean each thing placed has a purpose. It also save time later because there when you know where you're going to set up from the start the person who would be making the choice later wouldn't need to evaluate be "pregame" state of the board to determine which of the four sides would be most advantageous from him to start from.

2. Does it add another layer of strategy? Yes, but at the same time it is also completely removing a layer of strategy and I'd say the layer it removes offers a lot more balanced potential than the layer it would add. This new layer is completely one sided toward the player who would get to make that later choice. Now I'll grant that placing first is often an advantage but at the same time placing last or in response can also be an advantage so those can often offset; let the person who places last also get to decide where to play from gains all of the possible advantage as he can turn around that first placement to his own benefit before placing his based on where he's going to play from. It effectively take a 3/3 obstacle distribution and makes it closer to 2/4 even if one of the four isn't actually placed by that player.

3. Does making an initiative bid more important improve the game? Here I'll say no. Considering the complaints about initiative not changing it would seem that making it even more important doesn't help.

4. Should a player be able to plan maneuvers from any direction? Here we are in agreement and can say YES. Of course once the game starts moving horizontally that is already an issue but why complicate it by making it that way so much earlier if it doesn't need to be?

9 hours ago, StevenO said:

1. Does assigning sides improve the game? I'd actually say that assigning a side to play from actually DOES improve the game. When all side start equally it doesn't matter and thus it happens very quickly. Knowing where you deploy from makes obstacle placement a LOT more relevant to play as it can mean each thing placed has a purpose. It also save time later because there when you know where you're going to set up from the start the person who would be making the choice later wouldn't need to evaluate be "pregame" state of the board to determine which of the four sides would be most advantageous from him to start from.

You are correct that it might make setup a little longer as a player considers which side of the board to choose. I won't agree that knowing your board edge ahead of time makes obstacle placement more relevant to play. Obstacle placement is easier if you know what direction you'll be approaching from, but I don't want easier. We should have as many challenging aspects of the human competition at the table as possible. I really like the idea of needing to predict which side of the board an opponent wants to start from as obstacles are going down.

9 hours ago, StevenO said:

2. Does it add another layer of strategy? Yes, but at the same time it is also completely removing a layer of strategy and I'd say the layer it removes offers a lot more balanced potential than the layer it would add. This new layer is completely one sided toward the player who would get to make that later choice. Now I'll grant that placing first is often an advantage but at the same time placing last or in response can also be an advantage so those can often offset; let the person who places last also get to decide where to play from gains all of the possible advantage as he can turn around that first placement to his own benefit before placing his based on where he's going to play from. It effectively take a 3/3 obstacle distribution and makes it closer to 2/4 even if one of the four isn't actually placed by that player.

What layer does it remove? Ypur position isn't very clear. Here are the set-up strategy layers as I see them: initiative, obstacle placement, deployment. If the tournament rules were changed to match the Rules Reference, then you would add "choose sides" to all of the existing layers, none of which would be removed.

You are correct tht the player without initiative gains an advantage during setup, but that advantage could be negated again by smart deployment and maneuvering.

9 hours ago, StevenO said:

3. Does making an initiative bid more important improve the game? Here I'll say no. Considering the complaints about initiative not changing it would seem that making it even more important doesn't help.

The list archetypes with the most impact on the initiative war are repositioning and high PS alpha strikes. This setup rule would give incentive for more list archetypes to bid as bombing and conventional jousting lists want the best lanes between obstacles. This could strengthen lists that don't bid as a wider range of lists sacrifice points, and the usual suspects have to cut even deeper to maintain their initiative supremacy.

9 hours ago, StevenO said:

4. Should a player be able to plan maneuvers from any direction? Here we are in agreement and can say YES. Of course once the game starts moving horizontally that is already an issue but why complicate it by making it that way so much earlier if it doesn't need to be?

Your final question is your most compelling argument. Simplicity is a strong case for maintaining the status quo.

Mixing the pot a little more: The player without initiative is supposed to be in the reactive position, going second in ties of pilot skill value and ability triggers. This could be grounds to let the player with initiative choose their edge first. It takes some advantage away from the list that wants to react, and forces them to be even more reactionary as they now have to adapt to a disadvantaged starting position.

3 hours ago, jmswood said:

...

What layer does it remove? Ypur position isn't very clear. Here are the set-up strategy layers as I see them: initiative, obstacle placement, deployment. If the tournament rules were changed to match the Rules Reference, then you would add "choose sides" to all of the existing layers, none of which would be removed.

You are correct tht the player without initiative gains an advantage during setup, but that advantage could be negated again by smart deployment and maneuvering.

...

What layer does it remove? Going by your definition of layers it doesn't remove any of them but then by those same definitions it does not ADD any layers either as your "choose sides" is just part of deployment. The layers I was seeing are all part of obstacle placement where allowing the person without initiative to choose a side after obstacle placement is done completely changes how the person with initiative who places that first obstacle must act. As the rules stand now BOTH players are placing all their obstacles to their own benefit but allowing someone to pick later completely changes that as now the player with initiative is required to place obstacles in what are effectively the most neutral places possible while his opponent is still getting to place obstacles to his maximum benefit whatever that may be.

I'm curious how the player with initiative would go about negating the other player's huge advantage of effectively getting to place obstacles 1*, 2, 4, and finally 6? That so called "smart deployment and maneuvering" would get to be used regardless of what sides are used but the player with initiative is losing a LOT of control when it comes to deployment as he may have no idea what side he'd be deploying from while the other player will know exactly what side he'll be deploying from as he's laying down obstacles in response to initiatives random guesses.

When "sides" are taken before the game ever really begins you need to take a look at what "advantages" having initiative really provides:

• One obstacle placement going first may be an advantage in some cases but going last also has its advantages so this close to a draw.
• Is deploying first at a give PS really a big advantage? If you're sure your ships beat her ships then you may heavily influence her deployment but deploying second gives the advantage of responding to the first person's placement. If anything I'd give the advantage here to deploying second.

After this you'll be in the game where moving first had its advantages and disadvantages while shooting first is usually all advantage although you'd never benefit from simultaneous fire. Change the current tournament rules allowing the person without initiative to choose a side you now give that person a massive advantage when it comes to obstacle placement while unduly complicating the game and most likely slowing things down as well.

If tournament rules are to agree with the Rules Reference then it is the Reference that needs to be changed as there is very little gained in terms of a "fair" battle.

@StevenO Your position is getting stronger. I still think the game would be more fun with more important choices to make and variables to consider. I also think choosing a deployment side has some thematic value too. Messing with deployment zones has a lot of open design space. I'm going to test these ideas in my local group.

If you want "thematic" I suspect having a random starting side actually makes more sense than letting someone pick a side. To make it really crazy you wouldn't even need to require each player to start on opposite sides although everyone starting on the same side would probably be a bit too much.

As for "messing with deployment zones" you can see FFG doing some experimenting with that by looking had the new Han and maybe even some other cards.