Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bucknife

Obstacles in Deployment Zones (fortress fix?)

Recommended Posts

What if rules were adjusted to allow for obstacles to be placed anywhere between each deployment zone?

Could an adjustment similar to this change the way people force or deny engagements? 

If this happened, should players be required to bring 4 instead of 3 obstacles each to make sure that space was filled-in on the board? 

Edited by Bucknife
Misspelling and idea clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think this is a terrible idea. Obstacles in deployment zones means that things like Boba Crew have new value. It also means that you can disrupt an entire formation before you even start. Plus, if you simply toss 4 rocks in each deployment zone, that means no more debris on the board.

Additionally, if you get someone with Tobias and 4 obstacles, you can still muck up the center with 5 obstacles, even if your opponent buries all four of theirs in your zone.

If you say, well, to prevent the first, you can only place one in the deployment zone...you can then have 8 on the board. Things that interact with obstacles become much more valuable.

I think that the concerns over fortressing are valid...but we rather need a more fluid interpretation of the ruling, where judges can, if the opponent feels that the other player is being unsportsmanlike in their partial fortressing, call partial fortressing, for some smaller penalty. Or some such.

To clarify, if I were to actually suggest a rule, it would be that a judge be called over to give a warning, if a player has been "partially fortressing" - if they continue to do so next round, then a whatever penalty (straight white 2, etc) is applied.

Edited by Kreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to be restricted to your own deployment zone. It would be too easy to flood your opponents deployment with obstacles and damage or possibly even destroy ships within the first turn.

It would be simpler just to keep the range 2 from edge (which is at least range 1 away from deployment zones) and leave it at that. However I would like to see maybe allowing huge ships as obstacles in regular games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw.

Just bring a Gas Cloud or two, stick it in the corner you want to hover/totally-not-fortress.  More obstacles and a wider placement wouldn't really go that far to preventing fortressing.

Meanwhile, it opens a bunch of other issues.  Placing half the biggest obstacles deep within deployment zones gets them out of the middle.  This probably opens up a lot more space for a jousty squad to move.  Something like a block of TIE fighters will have a much easier job when there are fewer obstacles which can get in the way.  Even with more obstacles, you'll probably have an easier time placing them in parts of the board where they won't interfere with how you want to fly.

So it doesn't fix the problem.  Which I personally don't think is enough of a problem to require a fix.  And it creates a new set of issues.  Hard pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Naw.

Just bring a Gas Cloud or two, stick it in the corner you want to hover/totally-not-fortress.  More obstacles and a wider placement wouldn't really go that far to preventing fortressing.

Meanwhile, it opens a bunch of other issues.  Placing half the biggest obstacles deep within deployment zones gets them out of the middle.  This probably opens up a lot more space for a jousty squad to move.  Something like a block of TIE fighters will have a much easier job when there are fewer obstacles which can get in the way.  Even with more obstacles, you'll probably have an easier time placing them in parts of the board where they won't interfere with how you want to fly.

So it doesn't fix the problem.  Which I personally don't think is enough of a problem to require a fix.  And it creates a new set of issues.  Hard pass.

The magnitude of this problem is fairly low.  I've had somewhere between 100-150 games games with my viper list.  I've only had this particular set of circumstances occur twice.  And the previous time it happened, my opponents left an opening while within striking distance of the vipers so I came out of the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

The magnitude of this problem is fairly low.  I've had somewhere between 100-150 games games with my viper list.  I've only had this particular set of circumstances occur twice.  And the previous time it happened, my opponents left an opening while within striking distance of the vipers so I came out of the corner.

Well, to be fair, engaging your list is required when your opponent has less final salvo dice. If they had more, then they were wrong to engage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised at how hard some people are trying to make the OP's suggestion more problematic than it actually is. I just don't understand.

The suggestion that one player would flood another player's deployment zone with obstacles shouldn't be more than a quick comments and certainly doesn't present anything that cannot be overcome with a half second of thought. Something like requiring that each player select four obstacles and requiring that each player place one obstacle within range 2 of a board edge would seem to eliminate the problem (when combined with the existing range restrictions).

Any obstacle system is going to have problems. Currently, the board always includes free lanes on the edges, which makes for a very repetitive flying experience for many lists that like to joust or fly lazy circles around the board. With eight instead of six, things would be clustered a bit more, which would obviously require some testing, but I do not see why it would deserve immediate dismissal.

That said, consensual kind-of-fortressing is a two player problem that finding a rule fix for will require some serious thought. That fact that both players are parties to the situation, aside from how uncommon it is, means that tweaking the obstacle system to attempt to prevent it is not worth the time or the effort.

 

Also, I don't see why anyone would argue that Boba the crew being more relevant would be a bad thing. It is not like that card has a strong presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

Well, to be fair, engaging your list is required when your opponent has less final salvo dice. If they had more, then they were wrong to engage. 

For me, final salvo is NEVER an option. 

I have lost at least 2 final salvo games where I had 2-5 more dice than the opponent. 

I think more people would not consider Salvo as a viable path to victory if they had dice experiences like this. 

Edit:

Playing this game competitively is all about mitigating the randomness and making quality choices for victory. 

If something about the matchup or the way the opponent is flying tells you that your best choice to never engage, then maybe something about your deployment and/obstacles should have been different to foster a favorable engagement. 

If matchups and combos are already at a place in 2e where this is "impossible", then all I'm saying is maybe something about the core game could shift slightly to allow for more turn zero counter play. 

I'm not staying my idea is gold, but I'd rather have more choices on the table than an objective format for competition, personally. 

Edited by Bucknife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rapture said:

I am surprised at how hard some people are trying to make the OP's suggestion more problematic than it actually is. I just don't understand.

The suggestion that one player would flood another player's deployment zone with obstacles shouldn't be more than a quick comments and certainly doesn't present anything that cannot be overcome with a half second of thought. Something like requiring that each player select four obstacles and requiring that each player place one obstacle within range 2 of a board edge would seem to eliminate the problem (when combined with the existing range restrictions).

Any obstacle system is going to have problems. Currently, the board always includes free lanes on the edges, which makes for a very repetitive flying experience for many lists that like to joust or fly lazy circles around the board. With eight instead of six, things would be clustered a bit more, which would obviously require some testing, but I do not see why it would deserve immediate dismissal.

That said, consensual kind-of-fortressing is a two player problem that finding a rule fix for will require some serious thought. That fact that both players are parties to the situation, aside from how uncommon it is, means that tweaking the obstacle system to attempt to prevent it is not worth the time or the effort.

 

Also, I don't see why anyone would argue that Boba the crew being more relevant would be a bad thing. It is not like that card has a strong presence.

When you change things there is always a risk of it backfiring (have the unintended or even the opposite results). I did mention that you would have to make the stipulation that you are only allowed to put obstacles in your deployment zone but that right there would likely add to fortressing (asteroid batteries anyone?) than fix it which was the OP suggestion. The other issue is for non-fortress builds to be punished just because they are flying swarms of large based ships. 

Furthermore the problem of fortressing isn't exactly a problem much like a strong Boba. I don't see any fortress builds winning any major tournaments. I am a firm believer with board games (and even some video games) Keep It Simple Silly and while 2nd edition does a lot of good things the one thing it also does is adds a lot more complexity. Having zones that you can deploy but not your opponent just makes things seem more arbitrary instead of a simple deploy/no-deploy zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DerRitter said:

Why do you need to fix a problem that doesn't exists? 

Or exists with such a level of infrequency as to be approaching 0.

It's like wanting to adjust the Earth's axial tilt because today was colder than you liked.

This falls into the same category as the points adjusting stuff to make every card perfect.  People need to stop obsessing about the 1 percentile margins of the game.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I want to adjust the earth's axial tilt.. just a little ;)

Come on, now you all want it to!! 

What if we schedule a combined jump all of us on the northern hemisphere, at the right time?

bah forget it, not enough x-wing players I reckon..

hmm, but perhaps it would be enough if we could persuade Darth Meanies mom to jump, or just push her out of bed at night - that'l do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...