During setup you have Tavson with pattern analyzer tilted 45 degree into an edge with muse on side back. Then Muse 1 hard and Tavson zero red plus action, before engagement Muse removes the stress....repeat...Is this fortressing?

If nether ship physically moves, and those are the only two ships you have and you *can* plan a maneuver to prevent this from happening, then yes. Its fortressing.

No of course are not only the two ships in the list there will be others doing their job

6 hours ago, giancarlobasile said:

No of course are not only the two ships in the list there will be others doing their job

Then technically, it isn't fortressing as long as at least one of your ships is moving. But if those other ships get destroyed and those are your last two, you will need to get them moving soon after.

Although the given scenario of those two staying in place indefinitely while one or two others fly around would 'technically' not be fortressing, you should expect dirty looks from some opponents

It's about as wholesome as the 4k Defender plus Lambda trick. Unfortunately so long as there are rules that can be circumvented people will find ways to do so.

I’m new. Explain fortressing? I take it that it’s some sort of indefinite stalling tactics that people use to send games to time? What’s to stop an opponent from just killing the stalling ship(s)? What is the technical definition of fortressing, so I know when I’m guilty/a victim of it? Is there a minimum number of turns which must pass with no shots fired/no damage done before someone must make a real move?

Fortressing is defined in the Second Edition Tournament Rules as follows:

Quote

“Fortressing” is conduct violation relating to a game state in which one or both players are using the rules for overlapping ships to prevent the movement of their own ships. It is considered a form of stalling, as it seeks to create and exploit a stalemate.

The act of fortressing can only be determined by a marshal. At the end of any Activation Phase, a player may request that a leader check their opponent’s ships for fortressing. If the leader confirms that the criteria are met, a marshal then makes the determination whether or not player is fortressing.

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

It has occasionally been an issue (mostly in first edition, as far as I know) because with the right set up for it fortressing can make your opponent joust most of your list if they want to engage. This lead to ridiculous games where one person sat in the corner with their fortress, and the other refused to engage at a disadvantage, leading to a stalemate until time runs out.

It would be very rare for anyone to do this in a casual game as 1) most people want to actually play the game and 2) their opponent would probably just leave, since nothings on the line. I don't think it actually happens much in tournaments these days either, or not that I've heard.

17 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I’m new. Explain fortressing? I take it that it’s some sort of indefinite stalling tactics that people use to send games to time? What’s to stop an opponent from just killing the stalling ship(s)?

@Ysenhal quoted the official definition and gave a brief overview, indefinite stalling indeed. What prevents the non-fortress player from "just killing a stalling ship" is the way it's set up. Typically a fortress would be used against a more maneuverable list where if the fortress player would move into the board there's a good chance they would be outmaneuvered/flanked easily. The fortress would be set up with 3-4 high HP ships with 3 die attacks or ordnance and set up in a way that covers most of the possible approach angles with most of their guns. The actual trick to successful fortressing though is not to just stay there until time, it's actually about breaking out on the turn when one of those high value aces commit to a particular lane where the fortress player is sure they can trap and eliminate that ship.

If you fortress too long you will most likely get one of your own alpha'd and not have sufficient dice mods to guarantee destruction of a high value enemy. If you break out too early then you just wasted everyone's time and you'll get outflanked in a standard Ace v Jouster showdown.

Further history: fortressing in First Edition was originally used as a tactic of desperation by Jouster lists (such as 4X, 4B, or 4*G1-A) against super ace lists (such as Palp+Aces) because it was quite possible for those low mobility Jousters to get tabled if they tried to play in the board against the hard to hit Aces. It didn't take long for power players to start building to fortress as a primary strategy though with the introduction of a few high powered/durable Jousters and a missile that had 4 dice plus a condition that gave the target a delayed additional damage.

I think peak fortressing came in the form of a list with Nym, Jostero, and a Kimogila all packing that new missile plus Genius+Trajectory Sim+proton bomb on Nym. Those are all slower ships, but durable and with that combo they virtually could get 5-ish attacks worth of damage at mid to high PS to out damage any swarm/joust of that meta and against Aces they planned to use a fortress to bide their time until an ace got too close then spring the trap and eliminate a significant part of the enemy list and most likely not lose one of their own, maybe Jostero, but after the opening he was considered expendable anyways. That list was nerfed, then fortressing made illegal, and simultaneously the meta shifted to ultra-turret-lists enabled by new pilots and not having to worry about this super-Jouster-fortress matchup.

Fast forward to the present and many veteran players still have that insurmountable odds impression from competent and very intentional fortress play that warped the meta for a time. There's also lots of players (old and new) who will say, "moving forward is a core mechanic of the game, not doing so should be a special ability that is used few and far between not a general strategy for any old list," or appeal to flavor with, "it's un-thematic for Star Wars ships to just sit in one place."

FFG has carried over the ban against use of fortressing in tournament play into Second Edition.

On 3/28/2020 at 4:58 PM, nitrobenz said:

Although the given scenario of those two staying in place indefinitely while one or two others fly around would 'technically' not be fortressing, you should expect dirty looks from some opponents

Eh, not necessarily. If one is still flying around, the opponent can just ignore the fortressed ships and go after the one flying around with little to no support. But maybe thats just my way of thinking.

6 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Eh, not necessarily. If one is still flying around, the opponent can just ignore the fortressed ships and go after the one flying around with little to no support. But maybe thats just my way of thinking.

Just theory crafting here: if you also factor in Biohex then Tavson could grant additional key action efficiency through long range coordinate to a Lone Wolf ace or pair of pocket aces from the relative safety of his corner with them diving back in to regain the lock to enable Biohex as needed.

Is this better than having his 4 die gun trundling around the board creating a moving danger zone? I don't think so, but then again I don't Ace as hard as some players who I believe could pull off a "one ship Ace" play style.

So the list is with QD and Phasma both flying in circle close to Tavson so once damaged Phasma that is the main target transfer the damage either to QD for bonus attack or to Tavson for bonus action