What a none issue.

Herowanabe had a neat solution. It was to have card bases that get put under the ship that gets bumped to mark an email act location. Another neat change would be to have your pet hight mean something, things at a different hight need to be in the bullseye ( gives you a cone of fire kinda)

4 hours ago, Icelom said:

What a none issue.

Fortressing, or the tournament rulings?

11 hours ago, Marinealver said:

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.

yeah, its a shame too. more templates would make different ships more unique.

7 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Fortressing, or the tournament rulings?

Fortressing under the current tournament ruling.

You can't fortress during the whole game anymore and that was the only real issue.
Every other form of fortressing are not that bad and should not warrant extra ruling.

On 10/22/2018 at 1:49 AM, NerroSama said:

Fortressing under the current tournament ruling.

You can't fortress during the whole game anymore and that was the only real issue.
Every other form of fortressing are not that bad and should not warrant extra ruling.

So fortressing under casual is okay.

My concern is that well the fortressing results becomes non-uniform I mean how do you simulate a TO during a practice round? Do you roll a random d3 and say after this many turns the fortress is destroyed? As I mentioned before the current ruling was a bandaid to what was otherwise a non-issue. Drop it off on the TOs and call it done. Under that a TO could theoretically let fortressing continue indefinitely. It just seems like more of a soft ruling open to too much interpretation, I prefer hard rulings based upon mechanics.

You ask him not to, find a way to attack anyway which is usually possible and interesting to accomplish, or shake hands, say good game, and go find someone who wants to play your kind of x wing.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

So fortressing under casual is okay.

My concern is that well the fortressing results becomes non-uniform I mean how do you simulate a TO during a practice round? Do you roll a random d3 and say after this many turns the fortress is destroyed? As I mentioned before the current ruling was a bandaid to what was otherwise a non-issue. Drop it off on the TOs and call it done. Under that a TO could theoretically let fortressing continue indefinitely. It just seems like more of a soft ruling open to too much interpretation, I prefer hard rulings based upon mechanics.

You act like an adult and call your opponent on his crap. If the opponent doesn't want like it, play someone else. This is a complete non-issue that was put in to satisfy tournament players who had to deal with Palp-shuttle/double primary turret ship fortresses in 1.0- there is no real point in fortressing now. It's not a soft ruling, it has two clearly defined criteria that need to be met before a TO can rule on it:

• Due to the maneuvers that a player has selected, all of that player’s ships
have overlapped one another in such a manner that none have changed
positions on the board for two or more consecutive rounds.
• That player could have selected maneuvers that did not result in the same
game state.

Those are pretty unambiguous criteria, that show clearly that the player is not attempting to do anything other than fortress. It isn't punishing people for getting into a brawl or jam, it is designed to stop those that aren't attempting to get out of said jam.

Yeah, the criteria is very clear. In casual settings, if you guys are playing by tourney rules and someone's ships don't change position due to bumping each other, and there were options they could have chosen to avoid that, you say, "fortressing is against the tournament rules, you need to set maneuvers to break the fortress". At that point, if there is any misunderstanding from your opponent, you can use it as a learning opportunity, show your opponent the docs on your phone, for instance, and then move on with the game.

If he doesn't break the fortress next turn, you point out that he would be disqualified, you win, and then start setting your ships up for the next game. If he throws a hissy fit, find another opponent.

Fortressing is essentially stalling. Stalling has generally always fallen under a judges ruling. So, I don't see the problem here.

Are you going to push for autodamage for someone who takes too long placing their dials?

3 hours ago, kris40k said:

Yeah, the criteria is very clear. In casual settings, if you guys are playing by tourney rules and someone's ships don't change position due to bumping each other, and there were options they could have chosen to avoid that, you say, "fortressing is against the tournament rules, you need to set maneuvers to break the fortress". At that point, if there is any misunderstanding from your opponent, you can use it as a learning opportunity, show your opponent the docs on your phone, for instance, and then move on with the game.

If he doesn't break the fortress next turn, you point out that he would be disqualified, you win, and then start setting your ships up for the next game. If he throws a hissy fit, find another opponent.

One player in my group pointed out that technically you only need one of your ships moving for it to not count as fortressing, and that the cheap Quadjumper can do 1-backs and 1-forwards, so...

13 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

One player in my group pointed out that technically you only need one of your ships moving for it to not count as fortressing, and that the cheap Quadjumper can do 1-backs and 1-forwards, so...

Yep, that's legal with RAW.

Can someone come up with a fortressing list that is functional/winning against serious lists with 28pts set aside for a quadjumper?

Maybe?

I don't think that work around will be a problem. It would be like someone having a TIE/ln doing 1 hard doughnuts. /shrug

8 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Yep, that's legal with RAW.

Can someone come up with a fortressing list that is functional/winning against serious lists with 28pts set aside for a quadjumper?

Maybe?

I don't think that work around will be a problem. It would be like someone having a TIE/ln doing 1 hard doughnuts. /shrug

Not saying it's a problem; just pointing out it's possible.

On 10/24/2018 at 2:11 AM, Marinealver said:

So fortressing under casual is okay.

My concern is that well the fortressing results becomes non-uniform I mean how do you simulate a TO during a practice round? Do you roll a random d3 and say after this many turns the fortress is destroyed? As I mentioned before the current ruling was a bandaid to what was otherwise a non-issue. Drop it off on the TOs and call it done. Under that a TO could theoretically let fortressing continue indefinitely. It just seems like more of a soft ruling open to too much interpretation, I prefer hard rulings based upon mechanics.

I mean, why is someone really fortressing in casual?

If someone is like "Oh, I thought up this cool strange list, can I try it?" you've got a choice. A friend my mine had an oddball squad of Ten Nunb with Advanced Sensors, Squad Leader, and Mangler Cannon, a generic U-Wing with Hera, FCS, and Tactical Jammer to keep stalling in front, and pre-nerf Biggs with R2-D2 to keep regenerating shields. The Almighty Sarlacc, he called it. So then it'd be up to you to say either "OK, that could be a fun list, let's see how it goes," or "It doesn't sound like fun to me, do you have a different list you could fly?"

If someone has some normal-ish list, but just wants to self-bump to draw you in, there are three options. First, just fly in. It's casual, what does it matter? Perhaps you're at a slight disadvantage since your opponent is forcing your engagement, but maybe that's not even a disadvantage. Second, fly in your own corner and say something like "if you don't actually want to play the game, we don't have to. There's no time limit, nothing to gain from non-interaction, so what next?" Third, if you're both trying to emulate a tournament situation, maybe you're trying to learn how the new rule works and practice the situation, you'll know between each other the strictest way the rule can be applied, you can discuss it, and follow that interpretation.

Casual doesn't need a uniform rule, since you can negotiate the game with your opponent.

I think this should be a rule:

If ship A started its turn touching ship B and is still touching ship B after ship A moved or attemped to move, both ships suffer 1 damage.