So is it against the rules to just sit with all your droids on asteroids? If it's not, is it allowed?

If it is allowed can I sit on asteroid with 2 of my droids and bump rest of my list into them?

RAW on fortressing is:

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.

So, by RAW, no to the first, because none of your ships overlapped, probably yes to the second, because they did.

RAI, who knows. FFG ruled against fortressing, then immediately published three cards which explicitly let the things using them stand still forever with no outside influences (both flavours of Struts, and Leia plus the stop on the Transport), and the ruels for fortressing specifically include the words ' all [your] ships overlapp[ing] one another', which can be taken to mean that overlapping is a necessary part of fortressing, which means ships that DON'T overlap can't fortress, and a single ship on one can't ever fortress.

And in practice, whilst it's virtually impossible to have your whole list Grappled/Landed without some stuff already having died, it's easy enough to set up the latter situation.

TO's interpretation may differ from all the above. There's an argument that says any form of 'stand still without engaging with all of your ships' is fortressing even if it doesn't fully match the RAW above for whatever reason. There's an argument that says going 1 forward, K turn, 1 forward, K turn, etc, is fortressing. There's an argument that just doing 1 turns in a circle is fortressing. There a wide range of ways that you can set up a list such that one ship does a small amount of movement, and everything else bumps, which technically doesn't meet the RAW, but very clearly meets the RAI. Not to mention that TOs can penalise players for unsportsmanlike conduct for delaying/slow play even if they're not meeting the strict technical requirements of fortressing, above. And there are plenty of occasions where they might.

Sorry not to be clearer. It's not a clear question to answer. If you're concerned about them, ask your TO in advance.

This is purely my opinion (as im sure many rulings on fortressing would be) but i would say 'no' it doesn't count, because they are not in a situation where you absolutely cannot approach them without being in their firing arc.

Fortressing was a problem in 1E when people would camp their squad in the corner or edge of the play area in such a way that they always had firing arc on you and force you to 'run the gauntlet' to even approach them. This isnt the case with the droids because.

1. They are all spread out (as you cannot have more than 2 on any single obstacle) so they cant (easily) focus fire or make a death box.

2. They are in the middle of the play area, so its possible to flank them, especially given most have low initiatives.

3. Eventually, At SOME point, you're going to want to turn the droids to gain firing arc. Which does count as changing positions.

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

So, by RAW, no to the first, because none of your ships overlapped, probably yes to the second, because they did.

Eh, the wording sucks on the 2nd point. If you are going by that point alone, what game state is it referring to? I think, the 2nd point, is directly tied to the first, thus the first point IS the game state that is fortressing, by which all other criteria are judged. So it should really be a sub-point to the main bullet point, or bundled into the same point.

3 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Eh, the wording sucks on the 2nd point. If you are going by that point alone, what game state is it referring to? I think, the 2nd point, is directly tied to the first, thus the first point IS the game state that is fortressing, by which all other criteria are judged. So it should really be a sub-point to the main bullet point, or bundled into the same point.

I'm talking about the points in the OP; the first being 'all ships landed/grappled', the second being 'some ships landed/grappled, the others bumping into them'.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'm talking about the points in the OP; the first being 'all ships landed/grappled', the second being 'some ships landed/grappled, the others bumping into them'.

OOh i follow now.

2 points on that.

1. Even if he does do that, the 2 sitting on the obstacle wouldn't need to overlap the other ships to maintain position, so that knocks out " all of that player’s ships have overlapped one another" clause.

2. If he did want to do that, it would be extremely difficult to set it up in such a way that the bumping ships are not also overlapping the obstacle, while having 2 ships on it. The bumping ship wouldnt be able to open its struts (given the 1 or fewer ship restriction) and it would be rolling for damage every time. Odd's are good it would eventually kill itself.

Either way, i still see parking ships on rocks, exposes your fragile ships far too much to sit on them for very long (especially vs turreted ships).

Which is all a huge issue with the fortressing rules, because, e.g., if you set up two U Wings facing one another, and they alternate stops and 1 forwards, they're not technically fortressing, because on the turns the both do stops, neither overlaps the other.

Which is why the rule is poorly written.

I fine with a Hunger games type of rule, After 20 minutes if you haven't moved from Range 2 of your own board edge everyone takes a crit and gains a weapons disarmed token. Then after 40 minutes range 3, etc.

On 7/18/2019 at 7:17 AM, eagletsi111 said:

I fine with a Hunger games type of rule, After 20 minutes if you haven't moved from Range 2 of your own board edge everyone takes a crit and gains a weapons disarmed token. Then after 40 minutes range 3, etc.

The problem with that change is that it removes the totally valid tactics of playing up against the board edge to prevent flanking opportunities. If you change the rule to "if you have moved beyond range 3" then its easy to have fulfilled the letter of the rule and then still "fortress." Naw, as the Marshal of the event what kinda spawned the recent wave of "Talk About Fortressing," any realistic resolution has to be a **** of a lot more clever than most of the ideas I've seen bandied about.

I do think having alternative game modifiers like a shrinking field instead of (or in addition to) mission objectives would not be a terrible idea to spice up tournament play.

On 7/22/2019 at 2:49 AM, RejjeN said:

I do think having alternative game modifiers like a shrinking field instead of (or in addition to) mission objectives would not be a terrible idea to spice up tournament play.

Can we not turn this into pubg please..or fortenight, or whatever battle royal game you're thinking of.

Nope

On 7/23/2019 at 4:50 PM, Lyianx said:

Can we not turn this into pubg please..or fortenight, or whatever battle royal game you're thinking of.

I was actually thinking of a mission in Infinity called BioTechVore, but sure, be condescending and presumptuous.