So there is a little flaw with the anti-fortressing rule I am sure you can think of. It requires a TO to enforce it. While some might say this is fine I will say it seems very little thought out and more of a band-aid fix than anything. So I am going to propose an alternative. So first a couple of new terms to assist in rules because I think we can agree the best rules are written as analog programs.

Static Overlap When a ship in the End Phase is in the same position and facing as they were in the planning phase of the same round by cause of overlap or other reasons that ship is in what is called a static overlap.

Collision When one or more ships are in Static Overlap for 2 or more turns during the end phase each ship in a static overlap is dealt 1 face up damage card and resolves it immediately.

So basically redefine what is overlapping and what is using the overlapping rules to prevent movement, then adding penalties to intentionally preventing movement for multiple turns. It give considerable disadvantage to static play in deployment but still allows for scrums (think 3rd edition furballs) to be played yet even those scrums will have to eventually disperse before it starts to give out additional damage.

One more term that is more for specific scenario and this is in refrence for shuttles and ships that have the Red Stop Maneuver.

Landed (scenario permitting only) A ship with red stop maneuver can declare a land in the planning phase. During activation reveal a red stop maneuver, instead of executing the red stop maneuver discard dial and skip action, do not add stress for the red maneuver. While landed it does not have a dial and agility and weapons = 0 and does not get bonus dice for any reasons. During the end phase player may declare ship to be taking off (no longer landed). Place dial on the planning phase and activate ship as normal.

That is my idea, what is yours?

That distressing isn't and never has been enough of a problem to make rules about. It's always been an internet whinge problem, not an actual practical gameplay problem.

Point fortressing is a WAY bigger issue and a way more intractable issue, even now. It's more or less impossible to beat Luke with 2 die attacks. But you don't see pages upon pages of endless back and forth nonsense grumbling about that.

I've fought against genuine fortress lists I think twice in 5 years, and usually found them to be eminently beatable, and an interesting chllengebto approach and kill. I've fought against unbeatable point fortress lists way more often and they're a way more negative experience for me.

47 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

That distressing isn't and never has been enough of a problem to make rules about. It's always been an internet whinge problem, not an actual practical gameplay problem.

Point fortressing is a WAY bigger issue and a way more intractable issue, even now. It's more or less impossible to beat Luke with 2 die attacks. But you don't see pages upon pages of endless back and forth nonsense grumbling about that.

I've fought against genuine fortress lists I think twice in 5 years, and usually found them to be eminently beatable, and an interesting chllengebto approach and kill. I've fought against unbeatable point fortress lists way more often and they're a way more negative experience for me.

Well apparently it is a problem enough that it has an official ruling for Tournaments. IMHO the official ruling doesn't help that much. It just says the TO can say those ships must move next turn or they are off the table. Otherwise I wouldn't even consider a fix unless we start to see final salvo being the determining factor at the end tables (which we haven't). But since there is a 9 paragraph entry on page 6 of tournament regulations (most of those are just 1 sentence bullet points) it has apparently become enough of a problem to warrant official attention. Still the official entry seems to address more of the whinge problem then the actual problem.

It's more of a silly fluff breaker than an actual gameplay problem. It's not as if you see the top players at the bigger tournaments perpetually standing in the corners bumping themselves, and anecdotally I've never seen anyone try anything like that locally, except maybe a first turn Lambda stop & bump. Personally I'd have preferred bumping to have more severe consequences in 2.0 (stress for both ships, maybe), but in actual practice I think the rules are fine as they are. It's nice to give TOs something to refer to in the organised play rules, though.

The number one problem with your suggestion is that enemy ships can damage you with it. I was flying Miranda, and my friend flew 4-LOM in such a way that I bumped him at least two turns in a row, because he could shred stress and keep performing zero stops.

Not worth wasting time talking about.

How is this an issue? Are you seeing enough fortressing to warrant a new rule change and/or how are the existing rules hurting gameplay? If the only reason you are worried is because there is need of a TO, then I think you have more of a problem with your local meta/single player that is interested in fortressing than a whole gameplay issue.

While I am not overly concerned about this issue, I think many people are missing the point. The OP has stated that the rules that have been put into place by FFG to deal with the issue (whether or not you feel it is one), are insufficient to actually address what FFG is trying to prevent.

The OP then provides examples of how it could be dealt with better, and solicits feedback on his ideas.

Personally, I think your ideas are a good start, and address the issue better than FFG's approach. I always hate it when decisions are left to subjective determination by someone who is presumably very busy already ...

Landing only exists to punish players so hard that nobody'd use it.

You should never introduce a mechanic with zero benefits and only negatives. That's stupid. Nobody likes those.

5 hours ago, Ikka said:

How is this an issue? Are you seeing enough fortressing to warrant a new rule change and/or how are the existing rules hurting gameplay? If the only reason you are worried is because there is need of a TO, then I think you have more of a problem with your local meta/single player that is interested in fortressing than a whole gameplay issue.

Page 6

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/8e/c7/8ec7156b-17d3-4870-8d48-05a6a0a6bf47/x-wing_tournament_regulations_20_v2.pdf

It is now an issue.

6 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

The number one problem with your suggestion is that enemy ships can damage you with it. I was flying Miranda, and my friend flew 4-LOM in such a way that I bumped him at least two turns in a row, because he could shred stress and keep performing zero stops.

Thanks for the first legitimate feedback. YEs I see it being used as an alternative ways to bring damage but again I am trying to address the complaints that the ships are not flying in X-wing. Again ships not moving I didn't see it as a problem especially in the middle of furball wave 3 where TIE swarms and B-wings and X-wing would all clump up in the center not move but instead blast the ships behind the current blocker until a hole was large enough for them to get out. As for Miranda and 4-LOM the intentional bumping will damage his ship too as 4-LOM would also be in a Static Overlap. In that case I would give the advantage to Miranda as she has 1 extra hull point. I am not trying to get rid of natural furballs, just trying to speed up the engagement so the table top games doesn't become a static melee like a ground base game.

9 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Landing only exists to punish players so hard that nobody'd use it.

You should never introduce a mechanic with zero benefits and only negatives. That's stupid. Nobody likes those.

Well Landing was for scenario only and not meant for tournament which always take place in open space. The only benefit was not to receive damage from not moving because it was essentially on the ground. The drawbacks was to simulate a ship that pretty much is not moving making it a sitting duck. It was a theme not necessarily a balance mechanic, but I addressed it because the whole concept of anti-fortressing rules is to punish ships that don't move or make them illegal. With current tournament rulings ships that don't move are illegal, and I think that is the real problem here not fortressing.

I am not addressing the problem of fortressing, I am addressing the solution of fortressing that just made it a bigger problem.

44 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

I am not addressing the problem of fortressing, I am addressing the solution of fortressing that just made it a bigger problem.

I think it works as a "hard-coded" rule can be exploited by your enemy. Requiring a Marshall's touch works for me to prevent situations where someone is fortressing for advantage vs someone is forced into bumping against their will. And considering the solution is, "break the fortress on your next turn maneuvering or immediately lose, dumbass" I think it's enough to dissuade the action in tournaments, although I would have considered a thwap with a newspaper by the Marshall a good addition. We shouldn't see the behavior that was cropping up in 1E tournaments from time to time.

49 minutes ago, kris40k said:

I think it works as a "hard-coded" rule can be exploited by your enemy. Requiring a Marshall's touch works for me to prevent situations where someone is fortressing for advantage vs someone is forced into bumping against their will. And considering the solution is, "break the fortress on your next turn maneuvering or immediately lose, dumbass" I think it's enough to dissuade the action in tournaments, although I would have considered a thwap with a newspaper by the Marshall a good addition. We shouldn't see the behavior that was cropping up in 1E tournaments from time to time.

Well I must ask what behavior are you talking about suppressing? People are always going to exploit rules if they are written poorly. As for the fortressing that popped up it was in response to the super exploitative end of activation phase reposistioning. It wasn't until final salvo that fortressing could be used as a way to ensure the game reached final salvo and that their list had a dice superiority.

People have different ideas of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the game and that is exactly why we are here. If it were up to some players Paul Heaver would have been banned for using a turret ship as that was called super exploitative. I do agree that the TO should have the privilege to say you lost dumbass but that should be for blatant violations of the rules (i.e. the dial changing scandal). If the rules are bad, don't punish the players, change the rules so the exploit is fixed.

I faced this fortress concept once at a 1.0 Regional, like two years ago I think. I had never encountered it before, although I had heard of the concept before then.

It was awesome.

I realized what he was intending in the second round. I had to rethink my entire approach process, trying to work out where to go so that we would start the engagement on terms that were to my advantage, not his. (For example: what if I maneuvered my approach based on his fortress strategy, and he started moving a round early, how could I prepare for that?) We bantered a lot about it, and on the ?fourth? round I took over five minutes just to set my dials, I think I may have overheated my brain trying to work out all the vectors and variables. I apologized while doing it, he waved it off letting me take my time. I think he was (good-naturedly) enjoying watching me struggle with it. ; ) It was the fifth or sixth round by the time we actually engaged, and it was total carnage. I won in the end, but I remember it being rather close.

I had a ton of fun, it was a refreshing change, and our game is now a fond memory.

I guess I'm just providing an alternate viewpoint. ; )

10 hours ago, SOTL said:

Not worth wasting time talking about.

the people responding disagree. no need to enter a forum post you have no interest in and respond to it if you don't care to discuss it

44 minutes ago, IndyPendant said:

I faced this fortress concept once at a 1.0 Regional, like two years ago I think. I had never encountered it before, although I had heard of the concept before then.

It was awesome.

I realized what he was intending in the second round. I had to rethink my entire approach process, trying to work out where to go so that we would start the engagement on terms that were to my advantage, not his. (For example: what if I maneuvered my approach based on his fortress strategy, and he started moving a round early, how could I prepare for that?) We bantered a lot about it, and on the ?fourth? round I took over five minutes just to set my dials, I think I may have overheated my brain trying to work out all the vectors and variables. I apologized while doing it, he waved it off letting me take my time. I think he was (good-naturedly) enjoying watching me struggle with it. ; ) It was the fifth or sixth round by the time we actually engaged, and it was total carnage. I won in the end, but I remember it being rather close.

I had a ton of fun, it was a refreshing change, and our game is now a fond memory.

I guess I'm just providing an alternate viewpoint. ; )

yeah! unique off meta plays exist in every game, and they're mostly really fun until people find a hole in the rules. I dont personally see not moving as a benefit, unless it becomes common. maybe the OP has run into it more than others though

its quite a rare thing so maybe thats why its had less attention in terms of official rules from FFG to stop it.

i dont think its great for the game, i mean in theory both players could do it and just sit there and call it a draw.

id be ok with a one turn limit at the start of the game tho, that wouldbe fine.

13 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

That distressing isn't and never has been enough of a problem to make rules about. It's always been an internet whinge problem, not an actual practical gameplay problem.

Point fortressing is a WAY bigger issue and a way more intractable issue, even now. It's more or less impossible to beat Luke with 2 die attacks. But you don't see pages upon pages of endless back and forth nonsense grumbling about that.

I've fought against genuine fortress lists I think twice in 5 years, and usually found them to be eminently beatable, and an interesting chllengebto approach and kill. I've fought against unbeatable point fortress lists way more often and they're a way more negative experience for me.

yes. my biggest issue with 1.0 was that 2 dice attacks became useless because of damage creep and turtle creep, and it honestly seems WORSE in 2.0.

Haven't played enough 2.0 to be certain, but the basic math still shows many ships have a strong likelyhood of taking 0 damage from volleys of 2 dice attacks. Doubling all the stats could have given a much better design space, much the way it did for squad point totals.

2 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

yes. my biggest issue with 1.0 was that 2 dice attacks became useless because of damage creep and turtle creep, and it honestly seems WORSE in 2.0.

Haven't played enough 2.0 to be certain, but the basic math still shows many ships have a strong likelyhood of taking 0 damage from volleys of 2 dice attacks. Doubling all the stats could have given a much better design space, much the way it did for squad point totals.

i havent played any 2.0 but from what ive heard ships are generally more vulnerable and die faster. turtling from PTL and PTL effects is harder to pull off. evade isnt as reliable as it was in 1.0. action economy effects are still there and can help u push thru damage eg. Han Gunner. Another eg would be fang fighters that can used linked actions that increase damage output (boosting or barrel rolling into range one the used red focus. Drea with giving rerolls to even 2 dice attacks can add up quickly.

2 die attacks need double mods to be reliably worthwhile for sure.

21 minutes ago, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

i havent played any 2.0 but from what ive heard ships are generally more vulnerable and die faster. turtling from PTL and PTL effects is harder to pull off. evade isnt as reliable as it was in 1.0. action economy effects are still there and can help u push thru damage eg. Han Gunner. Another eg would be fang fighters that can used linked actions that increase damage output (boosting or barrel rolling into range one the used red focus. Drea with giving rerolls to even 2 dice attacks can add up quickly. 

perhaps, but my Scyks still don't hit Boba Fett and a Defender will still wade through A-wings.

In a balanced game every mechanical archetype should win statistically in its ideal strategic environment. The sniper wins at range but loses close encounters to the shotgun pointman, etc. now its Arc dodgers > Jousters > Tanky Turrets (>?) arc dodgers.... and then theres swarms, who weren't factored in at all. basically Turtles and glass cannons should balance out better with utility and swarms than they currently do

at present I'm not convinced that the squad point pricing allows enough 2 dice ships onto the board to compete with an equal value of 3 dice ships at the most basic level. and certainly not enough to allow the 2d ships to use swarm style tactics as they're meant to. there are other factors in the equation obviously, like agility, dials, support abilities, wingmen, etc... but you get the idea

6 Scyks and a z95 don't come anywhere close to beating 5 khiraxz fighters unless there is some seriously wonky rolling, and I'd feel pretty great about my odds taking an X-wing against 2 tie fighters

5 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

perhaps, but my Scyks still don't hit Boba Fett and a Defender will still wade through A-wings.

In a balanced game every mechanical archetype should win statistically in its ideal strategic environment. The sniper wins at range but loses close encounters to the shotgun pointman, etc. now its Arc dodgers > Jousters > Tanky Turrets (>?) arc dodgers.... and then theres swarms, who weren't factored in at all. basically Turtles and glass cannons should balance out better with utility and swarms than they currently do

at present I'm not convinced that the squad point pricing allows enough 2 dice ships onto the board to compete with an equal value of 3 dice ships at the most basic level. and certainly not enough to allow the 2d ships to use swarm style tactics as they're meant to. there are other factors in the equation obviously, like agility, dials, support abilities, wingmen, etc... but you get the idea

6 Scyks and a z95 don't come anywhere close to beating 5 khiraxz fighters unless there is some seriously wonky rolling, and I'd feel pretty great about my odds taking an X-wing against 2 tie fighters

i know a top player in my area and he thinks more generic ships is the way to go rather than using many upgrades. Also factor in the experience you have with flying a particular list. this is now more important and more significant than it was in 1.0 where you had some OP effects to bail you out and flying a list well was less imp than having a powrful list.

Right now in 2.0 some ships are clearly sub par and will not be super competitive until the points for them are rebalanced. The 2.0 meta is still in its early stages and therefore players are still tinkering with what styles and combinations of ships work well.

31 minutes ago, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

i know a top player in my area and he thinks more generic ships is the way to go rather than using many upgrades. Also factor in the experience you have with flying a particular list. this is now more important and more significant than it was in 1.0 where you had some OP effects to bail you out and flying a list well was less imp than having a powrful list.

Right now in 2.0 some ships are clearly sub par and will not be super competitive until the points for them are rebalanced. The 2.0 meta is still in its early stages and therefore players are still tinkering with what styles and combinations of ships work well.

Well I've been playing and thats not what I see personally, and I've been hearing that argument on these boards for the last 3 years of 1.0.

"nah, generics and swarms are great just no one knows how to fly them. just wait till things settle and you'll see". meanwhile Jan Ors is high fiving unkillable Corran as he double taps with 5 reds and 2 tokens while regening to kill 2 of my z95s in one turn and takes zero damage himself

Yes, some things got nerfed, a lot is better, but the whole game seems to be repeating the same cycle as 1.0, just at a faster pace. the problem wasnt jumpmasters or Fenn, it was Min-maxing in game design

I'm focused on scum as a player. Drea swarm is really good. mix of Z-95s and Jakku Gunrunners. Escape shuttle is also an option. Boba/Marauder/Han gunner is going to see plenty of play because its so good. Palob is one of scums best pilots and is really cheap for what u get. Kavil hits hard and im using im in a list with Palob and Nym, pretty upgrade heavy but u can play ships stripped down to bare minimum if thats your thing which is something u couldnt really do in 1.0 unless u went 8 academy ties or a Z swarm list. Scum is just spoiled for choices right now... 4-LOM, Guri, Fenn, Old Turoch. 2.0 is in a good spot right now foe scum.

On 10/20/2018 at 4:04 AM, Marinealver said:

That is my idea, what is yours?

Since you asked ....

Spoiler alert, I made up the part about it going into 2.0

39 minutes ago, BenDay said:

Since you asked ....

Spoiler alert, I made up the part about it going into 2.0

Well it does fit the theme because bumps are not collisions but overlaps. It was one way of introducing verticality in otherwise a 2dim game.

But as you know that requires a whole new template and unlike wizkids FFG doesn't want to put a new template (i.e. 4 speed bank) in the expansion. If there was going to be new templates (or dice) it would have been with the core set.