A recent casual game got us thinking about the tournament rules for Fortressing, and how they would interact with the latest iteration of Fat Han (usually involving the combination of Inertial Dampeners and R2-D2 Crew). The idea is this: After revealing a maneuver, Han spends a shield and stays put with Inertial Dampeners. Artoo then recovers a shield at the end of the round, letting Han do it all over again. Now, assuming that Han is the only ship remaining in your list, even if Han is dialing in different maneuvers that WOULD allow him to move, if he CHOOSES to stay in the same place over and over again, is it still considered Fortressing? Consider:

Quote

The criteria in the game state for fortressing are as follows:

• 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.

Using those criteria, a single ship can never "fortress," as there is no way it can overlap another friendly ship, even if its selected maneuvers (in this case, using ID to select a white 0-stop) would cause it to not move.

Obviously, this is all under TO/Judge discretion, as an event Marshall could decide that just the INTENTION of Fortressing is enough to warrant discipline... but what are your thoughts?

As the Han player is subject to damage in the form of potentially flipping one of their damage cards every time R2-D2 is being used, you will have a really hard time arguing that even the intent of fortressing restrictions (which is, essentially, to prevent you from freezing your ships so that your opponent must act to progress the game) applies to this interaction.

Where is Han getting the electronic baffle?

Edit: He's getting it in extended.

you cannot fortress with intertial dampeners, since it's not choosing a maneuver, it's a replacement effect for executing the maneuver you've chosen.

it's funny, because you could stand still using the same maneuvers, but if you intertal dampeners every other round, your ships wouldn't overlap and staying still would not be because of the maneuver you've chosen.

standing still with fat han is really bad for the game imo.. it's simply not a good game experience.

5 minutes ago, meffo said:

standing still with fat han is really bad for the game imo.. it's simply not a good game experience.

Bad for who's game? It takes a 3 card combo that requires you to get dangerously close to half points to even get working. Those points are on a ship that is half to three quarters of your squad.

It's fun to put the combo (Kanan, Dampeners, R2) on a Uwing though, just sit in the middle of the board a swing around

3 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

Bad for who's game? It takes a 3 card combo that requires you to get dangerously close to half points to even get working. Those points are on a ship that is half to three quarters of your squad. 

bad for the game as a two player simulation of intense spaceship combat. it's just not fun. i couldn't care less if it's good or not.

7 minutes ago, meffo said:

bad for the game as a two player simulation of intense spaceship combat. it's just not fun. i couldn't care less if it's good or not.

If you want a good space combat simulator don't play a game based on Star Wars. A franchise that is essentially WWII in space.

Just now, Orcdruid said:

If you want a good space combat simulator don't play a game based on Star Wars. A franchise that is essentially WWII in space.

i play x-wing because i love it - and i'm certainly not going to stop because you tell me to. also, i don't think star wars and WWII have much to do with each other at all.

i just don't think that standing still round after round in a game which is about maneuvering and keeping your enemies in the line of fire while keeping yourself out of harms way is good. making it possible is poor design. it doesn't make for good game play. the main feature of games are that they're fun. if you put things into a game that makes it less fun, that's not good game design.

39 minutes ago, meffo said:

you cannot fortress with intertial dampeners, since it's not choosing a maneuver, it's a replacement effect for executing the maneuver you've chosen.

it's funny, because you could stand still using the same maneuvers, but if you intertal dampeners every other round, your ships wouldn't overlap and staying still would not be because of the maneuver you've chosen.

standing still with fat han is really bad for the game imo.. it's simply not a good game experience.

You can never fortress with it on its own since it does not overlap any ships.

4 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

You can never fortress with it on its own since it does not overlap any ships.

very true, but i'm thinking even while fortressing with several ships, as in fortressing at all, since fortressing cannot be done with a single ship.

15 minutes ago, meffo said:

i play x-wing because i love it - and i'm certainly not going to stop because you tell me to. also, i don't think star wars and WWII have much to do with each other at all.

i just don't think that standing still round after round in a game which is about maneuvering and keeping your enemies in the line of fire while keeping yourself out of harms way is good. making it possible is poor design. it doesn't make for good game play. the main feature of games are that they're fun. if you put things into a game that makes it less fun, that's not good game design.

I agree with all that you said and this is in no way a diss, but X-wing has everything to do with WW2 IN SPESSSSSSSS.

Real space ships have no business banking in space, always going forward, and having fixed weapons facing forward.

14 minutes ago, meffo said:

fun

Fun is subjective. Just because something isn't fun for you doesn't mean its bad design or bad for the game or not fun for other players, to play or to play against.

1 minute ago, Orcdruid said:

Fun is subjective. Just because something isn't fun for you doesn't mean its bad design or bad for the game or not fun for other players, to play or to play against.

of course, but would you also venture to say that standing still and not maneuvering is fun? and that x-wings game design caters to people who like to play that kind of game? what do you think was the reason the rules for fortressing was put into the game?

the heart and soul of x-wing is maneuvering in space trying to pewpewpew those pesky rebel nazis (whops!) to oblivion. it's not having an immovable object be circled by our brave heroes while standing still in space and just shooting.

i'm not just talking about myself either, mind you, i'm more concerned with the quality of game play for everyone involved. we are a pretty huge community.

6 hours ago, meffo said:

of course, but would you also venture to say that standing still and not maneuvering is fun? and that x-wings game design caters to people who like to play that kind of game? what do you think was the reason the rules for fortressing was put into the game?

those pesky rebel nazis

If palp aces had to get down to half health before it could fortress it wouldn't have been a problem and there would be no anti fortressing rule.

The empire was the NAZI's.

5 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

If palp aces had to get down to half health before it could fortress it wouldn't have been a problem and there would be no anti fortressing rule.

The empire was the NAZI's.

you're not answering my questions. you really believe the fortressing rules were implemented only because of palp aces? that's ridiculous.

what? how? they're the good guys! i still don't think star wars has much to do with WWII, by the way.

Actually the footage shot in the MF turrets shooting at ties was ripped by Lucas from an old WW2 movie featuring a B-52 Flying Fortress.

Sorry B-29

https://www.starwars.com/news/from-world-war-to-star-wars-the-millennium-falcon

Anyway, the connections between WWII aircraft and Star Wars go well beyond the Millennium Falcon’s cockpit or manned gun turrets: it’s not a secret George Lucas draw inspiration from WWII newsreel and movies. Among them, 633 Squadron (1964) and The Dam Busters (1955) film about one of the Royal Air Force’s most famous raid in WWII against the Mohne, Eder and Sorpe dams, pivotal to Hitler’s industrial heartland in the Ruhr Valley, inspired the famous Death Star attack featured in “A New Hope.”

I don't want to be that guy, but was there a rules question anywhere past EmeraldBeacon's initial post?