Competitive Changes

Ok, had this discussion on Gamers during the down time, and I thought it might be worthwhile to have it over here as well especially to give the people who aren't Gamers members a chance to contribute/discuss/etc.  I've also included the link to the thread, because it has 17 pages of comments.  I understand most people won't want to read 17 pages, but I highly suggest that before you make any negative comments, or alternative suggestions you take the time to at least skim read some of it.  Chances are those ideas have been discussed and I don't want to just repost everything that has been said already.  Also, understand that these are not all intended as floor rule changes, and that I have no power individually to make said changes.  These are not all mine, and are an ongoing work with contributions I have taken from as many of our community members as I can garner their opinions on the issues.  SO have fun with it, keep it light, and please, no flame wars, or comments about me, or anyone else.  This isn't a personal subject, so let's keep it about the game we all love.  If you don't understand the need for one of these, or what the issue is, then I suggest reading the other thread as well.  Let's have some fun and get this board back on track to talking about minis, instead of picking fights with one another.


 


swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t...


 


As promised, I have been working on things I think we need to change for a while. Here are my proposals. Note, while I think each of them is a good idea, that does not mean we have to adopt everyone.

#1 - and this is regardless of number 2. We need to create a "Championship Format" for competitive play. Nickname's idea and I support it, is to change the Floor rules from focusing on the specific rules for different point limits, and instead use 3 new formats, that can be reported at any point level for DCI play.

For example, the three new formats might be, "Competitive, Huge Friendly, Open". Competitive can be used anywhere at any time, but it would be the required format for the regionals and championship and so on. It will have a hyperrestricted map list, and would be the only format where official "bannings" would be required. Huge Friendly will have a different map list (and ruleset if needed) based more on making huges playable (much like 200pts is currently). Open, would be the format that I talked about a while ago, however in this proposal, it will only be able to include official WotC materials (although I will be pushing to allow it to use fan created maps as well - no customs figures at this time).

For Competitive, I am proposing that the map list becomes:
Rancor Pit, Ravaged Base, Train Station, Jedi Temple, Deathstar, Cloud City, Muunalist (CS version), Chancelor's Starship and Nightclub.

HF would include the current 200pt legal maps.

Open includes every WotC released map, with the exception of the open Hoth maps (and if possible, fan created maps). Local Tournament Organizers would also have the power to restrict the Open format as needed. For example, one week to play "melee only", or to eliminate a problematic map for a couple of weeks.

#2 - If we don't completely like #1, option 2 is moving the championship to 200pts. A 200pt champ, would create other issues, which I will deal with in #3. But it will also have a hyper restricted map list using the "championship format" even if that list might not be exactly the same.

#3 - Stalling and slow play. First, I would like to add the following to the floor rules: 

Changing the existing entry for Victory Conditions to more accurately reflect that scoring the build total is the Victory Condition. Everything else is considered a tie breaker (it's there currently that way, simply planning to clean up the wording.)

Add the following statement to the floor rules:
"Appropriate play speed is one that gives each player opportunity to reach the victory condition within the time limit."

Then perhaps add the following either as an appendix or on another site for judges and players:


Slow Play: Appropriate play speed is a speed that allows both players the opportunity to score the victory points of the format under the time limit. This does not mean that every single game will finish in time and it is judges discretion. In general, if games are going to the time limit with neither player reaching the point limit then the following are good guidelines to decide if slow play was in fact occuring. In a 100pt game 10 or more rounds were played. In 150pt or 200pt game, 8 or more rounds were completed. It is suggested that any game going less than 8 rounds without either player getting close to the victory conditions be considered grounds for a slow play warning for one or both of the players. It is the responsibility of the judge to maintain a fair game, and shrinking the game down to a low number of rounds restricts the ability of either player to complete the game.Attempting to trick the judge by playing slowly, and then asking for additional rounds as time expires can be considered cheating and warrant a DQ from the tournament for stalling.

Stalling: Intentionally slow playing a game. Stalling can also be an escalation for a player warned about slow play earlier in the game or tournament, but can also be a stand alone offense. It is defined as knowingly slowing the game down to prevent your opponent from having a legitimate chance at winning the game from it's outset. (Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so). Slow play is a warning, and the judge should ask the player to move faster, and add as many rounds to play as necessary to reach a fair outcome. In many situations, a fair outcome cannot be reached, and in those cases, the judge should escalate it to stalling and issue a DQ from the game. For example, in a case where one player has been slow playing the entire time, has been warned, and still continues to turtle and hide his pieces from being defeated, after gaining a small points lead. Players should be encouraged by the judges to watch the time, and compare that to how fast their rounds are going. For example, in a 150pt game, if the minimum is considered 8 rounds, then an average round should not take more than 8 minutes. Players should also inform the judge as early as possible that a game is being played slow, so that the judge can watch it and issue warnings as appropriate.


Once time is called, the current round should be finished within 10 minutes or a slow play warning may be considered by the judge.

#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points. 
Edit: Change this one to read, "Score 5 points or the cost of the most expensive piece in gambit, whichever is LOWER."  The alternate suggestion is to just require that any mini gaining gambit cost at least 5 points (remember reinforcements still cost you 0, so even a 5 pointer cannot score gambit under any of these suggestions).

#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.  There are other errata ideas that I agree are equally good, Boris in particular, and I am not looking to restart the debate.  I am simply pointing out that people are working on this and this gives you an idea of what is happening.

#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).

#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.

#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.

Ok, that's it for now, let me know what you all think.

I that this is the same thing that I posted at Gamers, with a few minor changes, but hopefully it will help drive us towards productive conversation :P


 


1) Great Idea allows for more interaction and also allows for open formats where newer players can bring whatever maps or figures they have with out worry.

For regional and championship I believe having more restricted maps serves two good purposes, one you only use the best maps available (maybe even trimming it to the best 5 maps) this allows for less experienced players to prepare for fewer maps and to become more familiar with them.

2)200pts I think would allow for more options and greater expansion of current available pieces, this would make it possible to use GMLS and any other high point value characters we might end up with.  It also opens up factions more, as seen at Gencon Rebel squads came out on top, and all though a couple other squads made it to the top 8 they were not quite good enough.  At 200 Points I think you will see more factions and more diversity in the Meta

3)I think that defining the difference between them and expectations are never a bad thing. Maybe instead of just saying 8 rounds perhaps a range. A match should have run 6-8 rounds depending on the experience of the player as determined by a judge.  I think your added note about the game being played at a speed as to finish does put a better understanding that the DCI game is not about scoring points, it's about eliminating your opponent.

4) This seems totally reasonable to me, it is a little one sided currently.

5) I have read far to many thread devoted to this and I do not know that there is any one right solution.  I also hope we do not spend this thread discussing it. I also think that if people really want to discuss this at end this we should start a separate thread for it.

6) I like this idea, though wording should be switched to something having remaining health of 50% or less. This makes more pieces with heal more popular.

I did like the suggestion someone made of 1 point for each 10HP of damage done, maybe that only kick in after the 50% mark.

7) Don't have enough XP to talk to this, it seems reasonable.

8) Why? Football is still 4 15 min quarters in the Superbowl, The World Series is still 9 innings,  I think the time limit should stay what it is only granting extra rounds if someone is not ahead by at least X or the victory condition is not meet.



8) Why? Football is still 4 15 min quarters in the Superbowl, The World Series is still 9 innings,  I think the time limit should stay what it is only granting extra rounds if someone is not ahead by at least X or the victory condition is not meet.




I'll say what I can.  Dean and Jim came up with the idea and presented it to me.  Their idea was to make it untimed actually, I chose arbitrarily to put a limit of 2 hours.  The idea is, that our time limit is an imposition on the game that is necessary because of tournament time restrictions, not an integral part of it.  So taking it away for the final game, makes that game more about who will actually win, and not about who can be ahead at the time limit.  But that's a minor point from what I gather, the bigger part of it is this.

That it gives an even cooler and bigger feel to the finals than it already has.  With Jim adding the ultra cool live feed and Lou's amazing play by plays, etc, we easily could have done another hour of play.  Why not make it even more special than it already is?  (Provided it isn't causing other issues obviously).  And obviously once the victory condition is met the game ends at the end of that round.  I think in most cases it wouldn't go to time, but this gives the players that additional time in one particular game to really think through their moves (which is what many of you have said are your concerns over enforcing slow play).  That game has a higher stress level than normal, why not make it even better.


I will let Dean or Jim speak on it more, but it comes from them.  Those are the reasons that I remember them saying about it.

If there is a game that deserves the extra time, it is the final in the championship.  Don't let time be a factor in this pretty important (single) game. 

I like the idea of having a format that is huge friendly.  I'm not sure about #6, though.  Spreading the damage around to keep figs alive is a sign of good strategy in my book.  And if it's good strategy then  this rule would punish good playing.  But maybe I'm not seeing something.  Why is it that this rule would help the game?

I think that when time is close people have a tendancy to hide their damaged characters so their opponets can not get points.


#1 - and this is regardless of number 2. We need to create a "Championship Format" for competitive play. Nickname's idea and I support it, is to change the Floor rules from focusing on the specific rules for different point limits, and instead use 3 new formats, that can be reported at any point level for DCI play.



I don't see an issue with this one.  Basically, the current DCI casual format would be split into open/casual as it is and huge-friendly.  Then the competitive format could become more restrcitive for convention tourneys. (?)  If I'm reading that wrong, then let me know.  The LGS tourney would fall into casual with theme builds and maps restrictions allowed by location (if wanted) or could be following all the restrictions of the Championship Format.


#2 - If we don't completely like #1, option 2 is moving the championship to 200pts. A 200pt champ, would create other issues, which I will deal with in #3. But it will also have a hyper restricted map list using the "championship format" even if that list might not be exactly the same.


I don't like the change to 200 for the championships.  I don't really harshly object to it, but think it might cause more problems than it would solve.


#3 - Stalling and slow play. First, I would like to add the following to the floor rules:

Changing the existing entry for Victory Conditions to more accurately reflect that scoring the build total is the Victory Condition. Everything else is considered a tie breaker (it's there currently that way, simply planning to clean up the wording.)



This probably should be clarified in the floor rules to encourage complete games.  As for the rest about slow play, I don't think there should be set numbers of rounds listed in the floor rules, even as a guideline, but leave the procedure the way it is.  Maybe more information to the players and judges about what the typical number of rounds to be played and when/how to call a judge if you think your opponent is slow-playing.  I like the judge on the spot to have the authority to make a call on that one with some guidelines in mind, but not explicitly written in the floor rules.


#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points. 
Edit: Change this one to read, "Score 5 points or the cost of the most expensive piece in gambit, whichever is LOWER."  The alternate suggestion is to just require that any mini gaining gambit cost at least 5 points (remember reinforcements still cost you 0, so even a 5 pointer cannot score gambit under any of these suggestions).


I like the original idea, not the edit.  Keep it simple.  Reinforcements are usually designated/marked already so it would be easy to keep track.  Since they don't score victory points for the opponent, they should not score victory points for the player in tourney games.

#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.  There are other errata ideas that I agree are equally good, Boris in particular, and I am not looking to restart the debate.  I am simply pointing out that people are working on this and this gives you an idea of what is happening.


I believe a change is necessary if that what it takes to keep all pieces legal for play, but not getting into what changes are the best in this thread.


#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).


Not in favor of this one - too much to try and figure out at the end and could lead to more arguments due to errors in record keeping.  Defeat them and score all their points, I say.


#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.


I favor this one to reduce the lockout possibilities.  I don't see it coming into play often, but a nice addition.


#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.


I understand the reasoning behind this one, but don't agree. I like the final to be the same as the other rounds leading up to it.  Just personal opinion.

I'm not sure about #6, though.  Spreading the damage around to keep figs alive is a sign of good strategy in my book.  And if it's good strategy then  this rule would punish good playing.  But maybe I'm not seeing something.  Why is it that this rule would help the game?


Using tiebreakers to determine the winner assumes that the tiebreaker will actually make some reasonable effort to determine who is really ahead and deserves to be declared the winner.


If I'm ahead of you 50 to 49 and my Darth Bane is at 10 HP while you have an undamaged beatstick who's about to kill Bane if it weren't for time running out, do I really deserve to win?


If my GOWK takes 100 then runs for the hills depending on giving up AOOs and relying on SSM and FP rerolls to stay alive until time expires against your Boba BH who is chasing do I really deserve to win?


Over time, we have found that people are running their high cost pieces when they get heavily damaged rather than attempting to score more points with them. This is minmaxing the time and scoring tiebreaker issues rather than actually attempting to win the game (which requires using offense to remove other pieces or holding the center.) As such, the rules are not reinforcing the intended style of game. This change is intended to rectify some of that and get more accurate results from tiebreaker decisions.


Spreading damage around is still a good tactic. You still maintain your offense (the original reason for doing so) and you also only give up (assuming this new rule goes into effect) half the points for a character that you would have given up full points for if they were defeated. It changes nothing except trying to better reflect who's really ahead in some close games that go to time.

#1 - Very much like this ide



#2 - I like #1, so I don't think this is needed.



#3 - Seems like the judges would have their work cut out for them... but if it speeds up play and makes for more kills, its all good.   Seems like it would possibly weed out the 1 activation per round squad.


#4 -  I don't mind the idea of only 6pt characters or higher can score gambit.   But I also don't see a big problem with the current system.   But again, it does weed out certain figures that you see a lot of ... Lobot and his mice, uggie, noble reinforcements.

#5 - All for this as well.   Anything that gets GOWK back in the game is a good step.

#6 - Don't like this at all.   Part of the strategy of the game is knowing you can get the most out of a certain figure, then get him the heck out of dodge without dieing.   Plus I think the other steps your taking to speed up, increase kills, is sufficient enough.

#7 - Sure.

#8 -  More drama ... and a more pure victor.   I like it.

If at first you don't succeed, spend a force point and roll again.


I'm not sure about #6, though.  Spreading the damage around to keep figs alive is a sign of good strategy in my book.  And if it's good strategy then  this rule would punish good playing.  But maybe I'm not seeing something.  Why is it that this rule would help the game?


Using tiebreakers to determine the winner assumes that the tiebreaker will actually make some reasonable effort to determine who is really ahead and deserves to be declared the winner.


If I'm ahead of you 50 to 49 and my Darth Bane is at 10 HP while you have an undamaged beatstick who's about to kill Bane if it weren't for time running out, do I really deserve to win?


If my GOWK takes 100 then runs for the hills depending on giving up AOOs and relying on SSM and FP rerolls to stay alive until time expires against your Boba BH who is chasing do I really deserve to win?


Over time, we have found that people are running their high cost pieces when they get heavily damaged rather than attempting to score more points with them. This is minmaxing the time and scoring tiebreaker issues rather than actually attempting to win the game (which requires using offense to remove other pieces or holding the center.) As such, the rules are not reinforcing the intended style of game. This change is intended to rectify some of that and get more accurate results from tiebreaker decisions.


Spreading damage around is still a good tactic. You still maintain your offense (the original reason for doing so) and you also only give up (assuming this new rule goes into effect) half the points for a character that you would have given up full points for if they were defeated. It changes nothing except trying to better reflect who's really ahead in some close games that go to time.




Well stated.. all the sudden #6 is looking pretty good after all.


I'm still not sold on half the damage = half the victory points, though.


Your examples are a little extreme ... say it was Boba at 80 HP left ... and Obi at 50 HP ... and that turns out to be the difference??


 

If at first you don't succeed, spend a force point and roll again.

I like every suggestion.  I'm not sure eight is necessary, if number three happens.  If I understand correctly, the intent is to encourage the final matches to go to COMPLETION rather than time.  But if you don't slow play, I think it difficult to not go to completion, especially given the caliber of players that usually make the finals.  Am I wrong?   I mean, I don't think number eight is "bad" or "wrong".  I would just personally hate to play a two hour long single game, ever, even if it was the finals.    Maybe its just enough to say to my opponent that "If this goes beyond an hour, I will destroy you."  ;P


My only other comments are things like keeping the words to a minimum while still capturing the spirit and necessary info but I'm sure people have already offered those suggestions over at Gamers.  ;)


 


Good thread.

I'd like to chime in my two cents for those who might be interested in hearing it.


 


#1 - I'm confused why we need a championship format if the DCI rules are supposed to reflect fair play across the board.  Wouldn't everyone play by the same rules?  Why would they change in a championship round?  Why do we need huge friendly rules, don't the regular DCI rules reflect huge friendly pieces?  If not, why don't they?  I guess my concern here is that people play by one set of rules all year long only to have that set of rules tweaked and changed for the championships.  I can understand wanting tighter control over rules enforcements and gameplay and such.  But the rules should be the same.  I agree there is a need for a deliniation between "sanctioned event" rules and "casual play" rules, but that's about as far as I think we should segregate the rules.  the sanctioned event rules should be the same whether I'm playing at my LGS or I'm playing at the championship.


#2 - I don't have any objection to playing 200 point championships.  In face since 100, 150 and 200 point are legal values in sanctioned events I personally think there should be a championship event for each of these point values.  Each point value offers it's own unique set of challenges and restrictions. If they are worth playing at these values throughout the year then they should be worth playing at a championship level as well


#3 - I agree that stalling and slow play are an issue.  However I'm not sure imposing a minimum number of rounds is the best answer.  This seems like a case of reinventing the wheel.  If you really want to crack down on stalling then the matches should be played with chess timers.  Each person has a given amount of time during the match to play.  If they exceed their time they forfeit the match or take a penalty in victory points for exceeding their time.  This way you aren't trying to enforce an artificial style of play or influence the outcome of a match by imposing extra rounds in one game over another.  If rounds are to be timed then let the time be divided equally between the players and have that uniformity enforced across all matches.


 


#4 - I wholeheartedly agree with reinforcement not scoring gambit points.  If they don't score victory points for one side they certainly shouldn't score them for the other.  As long as they are properly marked this can be enforced and should be enforced.  I would not restrict gambit points to certain point levels.  As you expose lower costed pieces to gain gambit points you are putting them at risk, lower costed pieces are less capable of defending themselves and therefore at a greater risk based on their cost.  If it is a piece that is a legally scored piece on your squad it should be able to score gambit points.


#5 - Cudos for the effort to keep GOWK playable.  I'm not going to debate what the errata should be, but I agree with your intent.  Effort should be made to make him playable so the ban can be lifted. I applaud you for this effort.


#6 - I wholeheartedly disagree with this.  Using high costed pieces (such as Yoda of Dagobah) as a meat shield to absorb damage and then pulling him out of harms way to preserve him is a valid strategy.  Your opponent should be in a position to prevent you from doing this through innovative strategies (i.e. door control, extra movement, accurate shot, force powers, etc.).  If your opponent fails to take out a weakened character you should not be penalized for it.  I'll be the first to admit I've lost my share of matches because I failed to complete a kill and allowed my opponent to escape.  As frustrating as it is, it is a valid strategy.


#7 - I'm not sure I have an oppinion one way or the other on this issue as it's rarely been a cause for concern in my tournaments.  Perhaps I'm not entirely understand what the implied impact is of this suggestion though.


ddition.


#8 - I'm fine with the final round of the National Championship being a 2 hour limit, provided the rest of the rounds are 2 hours as well.  To me, the whole point of DCI rules is to ensure fairness.  As such, you can't really be fair if you're imposing special rules on one round (whether it is a single game final or not) and not the others.  If you want to be fair, then all of the rounds should be ruled the same.  I can appreciate the importance of the final round, which to me is why it is even more iimportant that it be unbiased and play by the same rules as all the other rounds leading up to it.


Well stated.. all the sudden #6 is looking pretty good after all.


I'm still not sold on half the damage = half the victory points, though.


Your examples are a little extreme ... say it was Boba at 80 HP left ... and Obi at 50 HP ... and that turns out to be the difference??




There will certainly be cases where the winner is debatable even with the change. All tiebreakers are imperfect (which is why my focus for years has been encouraging people to play a full game of SWM at a speed that makes finishing in an hour the typical result so we rely far less on crappy methods of breaking ties.)


I think if you take some time to look at the results of close tiebreaker games objectively, and make an educated guess as to who would have won based on the situation, and then see which scoring method is right more often you'd find that the #6 proposal is better by a decent margin.


 #6 - I wholeheartedly disagree with this.  Using high costed pieces (such as Yoda of Dagobah) as a meat shield to absorb damage and then pulling him out of harms way to preserve him is a valid strategy.  Your opponent should be in a position to prevent you from doing this through innovative strategies (i.e. door control, extra movement, accurate shot, force powers, etc.).  If your opponent fails to take out a weakened character you should not be penalized for it.  I'll be the first to admit I've lost my share of matches because I failed to complete a kill and allowed my opponent to escape.  As frustrating as it is, it is a valid strategy.


Nope. It's an abuse of time limits as typically happens. It's only a valid strategy if you'd do the same thing when playing to one player or the other being fully wiped out.


(That makes YoD a poor example, as his CE is one that might be valuable enough to be worth hiding him to maintain his impact on other pieces. So lets switch the character to Boba BH. If you're hiding your 10HP BobaBH in a room with 5 minutes to play and making no effort to use him offensively the reason is to abuse tiebreakers for a victory, not to try to win the game.)

Bottom line: Star Wars Mini's isn't perfect.  If DCI can be used to smooth over these imperfections than I'm all for it! One could over scrutinize the details proposed (and I'm sure you guys will), but as a whole I support what ever DCI decides.

SWM @ Atlanta, GA: http://www.atlantaswg.com/ SWM @ Charlotte, NC: http://www.queencitygamers.com/


Nope. It's an abuse of time limits as typically happens. It's only a valid strategy if you'd do the same thing when playing to one player or the other being fully wiped out.


(That makes YoD a poor example, as his CE is one that might be valuable enough to be worth hiding him to maintain his impact on other pieces. So lets switch the character to Boba BH. If you're hiding your 10HP BobaBH in a room with 5 minutes to play and making no effort to use him offensively the reason is to abuse tiebreakers for a victory, not to try to win the game.)




I agree that if the offending player is simply moving his damaged pieces out of the line of fire and stalling for the time limit without providing any offense it is a problem.  However the problem in this case is not protecting injured pieces it's a stalling problem.


 


If my Boba BH takes a boat load of damage and is in a position to be elminated and I move him to a safe location while defending him with other pieces that is sound strategy.


 


Also, "hiding" a damaged piece could be a simple as moving him into cover behind other pieces on the board so that an opponent lacking accurate shot or another way of hitting my hidden pieces can't shoot at him/her.  Take YOD as an example of this.  I move Yoda up to take the heat off of Luke Skywalker HPU.  Yoda takes a boat load of damage while still allowing Luke to make his attacks.  Before Yoda can be killed I move him behind Luke.  My opponent who lacks accurate shot and has to shoot at Luke now cries fowl that I'm sheltering a damaged piece that he should be able to kill.  While this may seem like an extreme case it's one that came up as recently as two weeks ago at my LGS.


 


The rule for victory points as it stands now is simple, easy to track and fair.  You get points for a character that is defeated.  Not almost defeated, not kind of defeated, not might be defeated if we played one more round.  Sheltering damaged pieces is a valid strategy, even if it might be considered unfair to some.  If you are playing against someone who has the potential to do this then you adjust your strategy to limit their ability to do so. Changing the rules for every time a strategy is devised that people don't like is just going to erode the game.


 


Again, just my two cents.


Bottom line: Star Wars Mini's isn't perfect.  If DCI can be used to smooth over these imperfections than I'm all for it! One could over scrutinize the details proposed (and I'm sure you guys will), but as a whole I support what ever DCI decides.




I would tend to agree with you, to a point.  It seems the game is heading in the direction of becoming extremely rules heavy, at least for DCI play.  If a piece comes out that causes problems or a strategy is devised that people don't like there seems to be a quick rush to judgement that the rules need to be changed.  While I'll admit that some rules tweaks are needed, if for nothing else than to keep the game fresh.  I'm concerned that we are basically legislating the "game" away.


 


I understand that DCI is focused on the competetive aspect of game play and strives to ensure that the game is as fair as can possibly be.  I can respect the reasoning behind this move and to a certain degree I even agree with it.  But at the end of the day we have to remember that it is just a game and it would be a crying shame if we all had to get law degrees in order to keep up with the rules and play the game by the letter of the law.

Having SWCCG beckon me back a bit recently, and ironically, they have been discussing the merits of a SOS system (similar to the DCI's).  I would like to see is Timed Wins, which essentially count less that a win.  I think this would eliminate a lot of the "Stall to Win" issues, and I think the "Stall to Lose" (essentially a player trying to take his opponent with him) has more fair and creative options to combat. 


Of course, I am realistic here.  This would require an entire rewrite to the DCI reporter, which is not happenning.

My problem with number 6 is that it appears to me to be another attempt to limit stalling strategies that slow down or take away from the spirit of the game, when this problem has already been addressed in many of the other rules mentioned.  Going this far seems like overkill to me.  I COULD see number six as a tie breaker, but that's it.  


It takes away a vital part of the strategy that was built into the game at the very beginning.  If you want victory points, you gotta kill the character.  As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.  What this does is make characters like rieeken and wedge that grant evade and characters that make saves for damage even more important and dumbs down the finer strategic elements of the game.  If the game is close and you've ignored a major character 150 HP character for the entire game, you simply charge him with guns ablazing with a 28 point character that can do 80 damage in one turn in the last minute of the game in order to try to pull off a victory.  Most 150 HP characters are 50+ points, so for saving that character for the end of the game and unleashing one last barrage you get rewarded with partial victory points?  In today's scene, with all the massive damage output available, doing 80 damage aint that hard, especially when its the endgame and you aren't fearing reprisals for exposing that 28 point 80 HP character.  To the guy that used the Bane example.  That is part of the built in cost of Bane.  His 200 points make him hard to kill and hard for your opponent to get victory points, if you play him carefully enough.  That's one of the few benefits of using Bane over two forty point characters.  If you didn't build into your strategy the fact that you have to kill Bane all 200 HP worth, then you deserve to lose, as your initial strategy was lacking. 


IMHO, this rule would minimize the importance of the middle game and make the end game (using dodonna and going last in the last round, and saving up for one last barrage against a major character) more important.  To me, that's never what the game has been about any more than using dodonna should have been a crucial part of "outactivating" an opponent, which in essence is an accepted form of stalling.  I've always enjoyed the middle game, positioning, setting traps, and then having to commit to a strategy that i've devised, because I can't let that 50 pt character escape.  People complain about the prevalence of Dodonna, but this rule is going to make him as important for the end game as he is for beginning gambits as well and IMO that is a bad thing, because he already gets abused enough as it is.


This might actually hurt your intention to minimize stalling, as a player might very well strategize to take an opponent's major character(s) down to half life and then choose to stall for the rest of the game, hoping to win on the points he gets from taking down the character.


While I appreciate many of the proposed changes for trying to keep the spirit of the game inside the competitive scene, it also disturbs me how rule 6 simplifies the game, while other proposed rules overcomplicate it.  So, stalling is going to be a complex subjective call that the judge has to make?  In large tournaments, I am afraid that it will be difficult for a judge to keep close enough watch on a single game to know who the offending (stalling) player is in order to penalize or DQ them and if they don't, then it comes down to the word of the players in the match or spectators (which is not a valid way to judge a competitive game).  I understand where you are going with the stalling rules, but there's gotta be a better way and perhaps the revised gambit rules are all the solution that is needed.

In your example scenasrio, pitcherstar, the benefit of it is that it forces engagement way earlier than engagement is forced currently in the game.


Currently:  People sit around, not attacking until the very end, with the hopes that they will kill something and win.


Suggested Rule change #6:  By allowing partial point totals, the person who has been attacked in the mid game is forced to so something about it much earlier.  You are down on points, you must engage.


Before, someone could take that damage and still wait it out.


If you don't like stalling, you WANT action to shift more to the middle game and beginning game then the end game.  The ability to play to the endgame is what has made stalling so easy to do for some people.


 


I also think it rewards a wider variety of squad choices.  Gneerally, in competitive play, high damage output rules the day because you need it to be able to eliminate an enemy figure completely to score points.  Rule #6 would open up squads to allow for ones less focused on short "burst" damage and allow for more sustained conservative damage.  Those squads could be just as effective as burst damage squads.


Finally, many squads are focused on high HP figures with fodder to provide you with a "point sink", allowing you to stall for longer.  Allowing for partial points allows you to stop people from using "point sinks" as a legitimate strategy to stall.  It should bring more figures back into the meta, becausea  point sink strategy doesn't necessarily do much for you anymore.


I think the benefits far outweigh any potential abuses and it would be far better than the current state of the game.


My problem with number 6 is that it appears to me to be another attempt to limit stalling strategies that slow down or take away from the spirit of the game, when this problem has already been addressed in many of the other rules mentioned.  Going this far seems like overkill to me.  I COULD see number six as a tie breaker, but that's it...


 




Extremely well stated, I couldn't agree more.  I'm a bit envious that I was not able to state my point as clearly as you were yours


In your example scenasrio, pitcherstar, the benefit of it is that it forces engagement way earlier than engagement is forced currently in the game.




Rule 6 concerns me because it's a fundamental shift in the way the game is played.  You are no longer awarding victory points for eliminating pieces you are instead awarding victory points for damage inflicted.  It's a massive change to the game that I think people are overlooking.  If you're going to go this route then you need to change the way victory points are scored.  Instead of awarding half a piece's cost for damage beyond a certain point why don't you simply award points based on damage inflicted.  If I do 80 points of damage to Bane then I should get 80 victory points. The way rule six is written now if I do 190 points of damage I only get half his point cost, that's hardly fair.


 


Instead of awarding victory points based on the cost of the figure why not simply award victory points based on the damage a figure incurs.  If Bane is killed the attacker gets 200 points as opposed to Banes point cost.  That's really where rule six is trending towards anyway.  So why not abandon the current victory points rule now and go based on damage since based on the logic of rule six I should be awarded points for the damage I do.  In that case, lets award victory points for all the damage done.  This will certainly present a clear winner and promote more aggressive and offensive styles of play. 


 


Applied across the board damage awarded victory points tends to make the most sense going in the direction of the current philosophy.  Granted it's a bit of a headache adding it up at the end of a game, but you're probably looking at a much accurate representation of who deserves to win the match based on that.

1st I think that if people "are playing the game so as to finish in an hour" and are not slowplaying or stalling than #6 is really a mute point.


2nd I think this drives us back to what I think was the intent, Eliminating your opponent is the primary way to win, Victory Points provide a way to see who one should the game go to a tie. 


If you have a character that is damaged, what are you going to do with it? Run and Hide? Knowing that you are, if the game goes to time, going to get give up half points, going to be more offensive with that player pushing to take out an opponents piece before they take out yours?  Healing becomes a more interesting strategy in the game. (if the wording is changed to #6 first, to note having 50% or less HP remaining) 


Let's say it is not just a character that has been damaged but your entire squad, all of a sudden you know that you have to take out some of their characters because you are potentially giving out alot of points, again forcing you to engage. Again hopefully driving towards finishing the game in time.


The idea of Hiding Luke behind Yoda, or Yoda behind Luke is still a valid strategy, to allow your characters a way to engage while minimizing damage. But if you are doing this to push the game to time and win on Victory points than you are stalling or slow playing. 


 


I do agree that there is some fundamental changes to the game with this rule but not all bad.


 


Pro's:


1) Does not penalize a player who is slightly behind on points and their opponents are hiding their almost dead characters. (Override, ect)


2) Brings in some additional elements to the game that are currently not sued such as Healing.  A 70 point Barris and Luminaria combo becomes a little more interesting with the heal capabilities.


3) Pushes people to engage and finish the game with in time, again there is no point in running characters to hide, so you might as well finish it.


4)Puts more focus on damaging characters throughout the game than just getting enough point to win on Tie Breakers at the end.


 


Con's


1) Does change the game play and manner in which people currently play, and changes these strategies people are currently using.


2)?

I don't think that I articulated one of my above concerns as well as I should have.  My concern with #6 is that a person who has been outplayed the entire game might have the opportunity in the endgame, through the use of a dodonna like character to go last in the very last round and without fearing reprisals, because their major characters are going last be able to make a last round mad rush at their opponent and take 1 or 2 high cost characters down to half their hit points in order to win the match. 


If you want to eliiminate stalling, I think that having to have a character with higher than a cost of 5 in gambit in order to score gambit points works well.  Heck, I think you could even bump it up to a cost of 10.




Rule 6 concerns me because it's a fundamental shift in the way the game is played.  You are no longer awarding victory points for eliminating pieces you are instead awarding victory points for damage inflicted.  It's a massive change to the game that I think people are overlooking.  If you're going to go this route then you need to change the way victory points are scored.  Instead of awarding half a piece's cost for damage beyond a certain point why don't you simply award points based on damage inflicted.  If I do 80 points of damage to Bane then I should get 80 victory points. The way rule six is written now if I do 190 points of damage I only get half his point cost, that's hardly fair.


 


Instead of awarding victory points based on the cost of the figure why not simply award victory points based on the damage a figure incurs.  If Bane is killed the attacker gets 200 points as opposed to Banes point cost.  That's really where rule six is trending towards anyway.  So why not abandon the current victory points rule now and go based on damage since based on the logic of rule six I should be awarded points for the damage I do.  In that case, lets award victory points for all the damage done.  This will certainly present a clear winner and promote more aggressive and offensive styles of play. 





This is what I'm concerned about.  SWM was never a game about just doing damage to a character.  It was about doing strategic damage to a team in order to achieve victory.  What rule #6 does is dumb down strategy by awarding points for doing blanket damage.  Whereas before, a player had to be strategic about the damage he inflicted so as to hurt the strengths of the other team and then be able to win the match through eliminating them, now, you are rewarding players for simply being able to do damage to characters.  Granted, Rule #6 doesn't do this to the extreme that case the which as stated above does(rewarding victory points based on the damage that you do).  But it is an ugly shadow of the above scenario.  One of my biggest fears is that once you start rewarding victory points for things other than kills, that the next logical conclusion is the scenario above, where players get awarded for playing characters with the lowest hit points and highest damage output possible.  Then the game becomes a contest of who can field the team with the lowest HP and the highest damage output potential.  Whereas before, low HP was considered a weakness in a team, the game would be turned on its head and characters with low HP would be ideal, so that you could keep the team from scoring victory points.


To sum it up:  you shouldn't reward players for simply being able to roll dice and do damage to whatever enemy presents itself.  You should reward players for being able to strategically do damage with the end goal of eliminating the other team.  By giving victory points for doing half damage, you end up changing the end-middle and the end game into a race to see who can do the most damage the fastest which was never what the game was about.  I agree with Darth Variable in that rule 6 fundamentally changes the way that the game is played and that it is a dramatic shift that is NOT healthy for the game.

The implementation as currently stated is still one that is flawed in it's application.  Take the Bane example.  If Bane takes 190 points of damage and is across the board with an opponent full of shooters and there is time left on the clock, it's much better for me to hide Bane and only give up half his point cost than the charge him into a barrage of fire and risk his full cost.


 


With someone like Boba BH and his mobile attack, it's very easy to keep him concealed and out of danger while using Mobile Attack to still inflict damage to the enemy.  So why then should I loose half his point cost if I can still effectively use him in an offensive manner just because he took damage?


 


This rule does change the game dynamic.  If you are going to go that route then why not take it a step further and base your victory points not on kill points but on damage points entirely.  With this idea you completely eliminate the issue of picking off an ugnaught and stalling the rest of the game.  You can even take it a step further and put a victory condition on a standard scenario that requires at least 25 percent of a match cost must be score to determine a winner either wise game play continues until that point is reached, and is ultimately determined by damage points.  Do away with Gambit entirely in this situation and base victory strictly on damage with a minimum damage amount required to delcare victory.


Let's look at the pro's and cons of this:


Pros


1. In this scenario you still are placing a new found focus on healing since that can now win you the game rather than simply delaying a death. 


2. Regardless of the cost of a piece on the board you are getting a fair value for the work you do with damage. 


3. You are forcing people to engage to meet the minimum victory conditions. 


4. You are eliminating the need to scramble to the center of the map for points. 


5. You eliminate the controversy over Reinforcements and gambit points as well as 3 point characters scoring 5 points of gambit each round.


 


Cons


1. Changing the dynamic of the game (which we are already proposing in the first place)


2. Added complication to score keeping and a reliance on more accurate accounting of damage dealt and healed.


To sum it up:  you shouldn't reward players for simply being able to roll dice and do damage to whatever enemy presents itself.  You should reward players for being able to strategically do damage with the end goal of eliminating the other team.  By giving victory points for doing half damage, you end up changing the end-middle and the end game into a race to see who can do the most damage the fastest which was never what the game was about.  I agree with Darth Variable in that rule 6 fundamentally changes the way that the game is played and that it is a dramatic shift that is NOT healthy for the game.




I agree with you.  My "worst case" scenario of changing victory points to be based on damage was an attempt to illustrate the fundamental shift that rule 6 is introducing and the path it could lead us down.  It changes the game, it eliminates the strategy the game is based on and it shifts the game mechanics in a direction that will effectively make it a completely different game.


 


If that is the direction that DCI and the gaming community decide to go down then that's a decision that we'll have to live with.  If they decide to take that one step then we should take the whole step and redefine the game based on that philosophy rather than having half a solution that is fair in one case but unfair in others.


 


Personally I'm not in favor of moving to damage as a means of scoring victory points.  But if we're going to half do it, then lets do it right and do it all the way.  Otherwise lets abandon such a radical approach to solve a recurring problem that can be solved with other simpler and less radical methods.

Pitcherstar number 6 only matters if you go to time. Most of my games outside of playing vs the speeder dont go to time. With number 1 in place I dont think games should go to time,With number 4 making action happen faster. Number 1,4 work together to make 6 happen.Maybe 6 should only come into play if you dont play 8 rounds. Some games like bill vs wedge might be 15 to 10 in 2007. They played like 20 rounds.I say we make a good guideline for slow play for judges and how judges in force the rules when needed. I am ok with hiding pieces but a lot of people eat the clock up doing so. Bane isnt a problem in 150. The problem is rebels geting a lead take some damage and hide clock out for the win. Evade and maps are the big problem with the game right now which causes slow play to a point.


To sum it up:  you shouldn't reward players for simply being able to roll dice and do damage to whatever enemy presents itself.  You should reward players for being able to strategically do damage with the end goal of eliminating the other team.  




I agree, but I think we're looking at this from two different angles.  In my mind, the player isn't being rewarded for doing blanket damage.  In my mind, the player who GAVE that opportunity to their opponent is getting what they deserve.  Understanding positioning and the timing of strikes is part of the deep strategy of this game, and if and when the rules were to change to this, it isn't DUMBING down the way the game plays, it is changing WHO HAS CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY at different times. You still have a cognitive responsibility to put damage in specific places at specific times.  It just doesn't have as big of an impact as it did.  What this would ADD, is MORE cognitive responsibility to position appropriately and strike at appropriate times.  In short, I think it adds more depth to strategy, rather than one "bing-bam I just have to do lots of damage at this moment and I win."  You may not see it that way, and thats fine.  


 


So, the "reward" is more spread across two cognitive loads, rather than one giant thing.


 


Re:  points for damage dealt:  Way too complicated.  My counter argument is that the amount of damage to go from half down to full down on a fig is nothing IF YOU ARE ENGAGING.  And that is the point here.  This sort of point system rewards people who engage, yet punishes people if they do startegically dumb things and just over-extend themselves.


 


The logic that your arguments and Variable's arguments are predicated on is utilizing thinking that matches the old way.  Many of your points of why this new system would be "bad" can still happen in the current system and can happen much more easily, IMO.  No system is perfect, but these suggestions work a lot farther to eliminating slow play than the old way.  


 


If you want, we can meet on Vassal and I'll show you.  If not, no big deal.  Play some games with this.  I think when you do, and play them seriously, you'll see that it will improve game play.


If you want, we can meet on Vassal and I'll show you.  If not, no big deal.  Play some games with this.  I think when you do, and play them seriously, you'll see that it will improve game play.




Just from my personal perspective, a rules change like this would actually make me much more conservative.  I would be far less reluctant to expose pieces to danger and far more likely to build a team of mobile attackers who can safely attack and hide.  Or building a team of super stealthers who can 't be hit but can inflict damage.  That doesn't strike me as "engaging" more.  What it does to me is force me to find new and creative ways to either avoid damage to my pieces or to play swarms of low cost pieces that can deal damage at minimal cost if they take their allotted half damage.  Niether of which appeals to me as a player.


 


I'd much rather keep the system the way it is and find new and creative ways to either draw my opponent out our press my advantage when the opportunity avails itself.  In other words I'd much rather develop my own strategy on how to win rather than have the rules dictate the strategy that I must use.  I don't think it's neccessarily dumbing down anything, I just think it's restricting my options unneccessarily.


 


I still say if you want to eliminate stalling, which seems to be the general aim of many of these proposed rules changes then institute a chess style clock.  Impose a penalty (whether it be a point penalty, disqualification or whatever) on those who exceed their time limit.  You'll see rounds played faster and match time limits quickly evaporate as people are not fighting against the clock as well as their opponent.


 


To me, changing the fundamental play of the game and how victory points are scored just isn't an appealing option.  If you want to count damage for a tie breaker, I'm all for that.  But if there's a clear winner between victory and gambit then there's a clear winner as was defined in the original spirit and concept of the game.  Changing that changes the game.  Maybe at some point such fundamental changes to the game are needed, I just don't think that time is the here and now.


My problem with number 6 is that it appears to me to be another attempt to limit stalling strategies that slow down or take away from the spirit of the game, when this problem has already been addressed in many of the other rules mentioned.  Going this far seems like overkill to me.  I COULD see number six as a tie breaker, but that's it.  




Bu...bu...bu... it is only a tiebreaker? It only applies if time runs out and the game is decided by tiebreakers.

I have damaged all your pieces to 10 HP. I have 0. I have 50 gambit. Total 0+50=50.


You have killed all my pieces except a Jawa and no gambit. you have 145. You win if you score 5 gambit ending the game 150 to 50. (Granted, you're winning either way but just showing that this ONLY kicks in when time runs out.)


On your other point. It's not about stalling. Stalling is cheating and being caught stalling is  DQ. I think there's virtually no stalling problems in the game at this point. It's primarily about determining the more likely winner in the unfortunate case of a game going to time. And then secondly, promoting a style of play in tournament play that more closely mirrors how one would play without the time limits.


(ie. Rushing across the board with a snowspeeder to kill a 10 point piece with time running down knowing that even if you lose init the worst you take is 60 before you run away becomes less viable. In round 1 of the champs I don't even attack the Landspeeder. Can't kill it. Why bother? Instead I spread damage and hunt down one piece I can kill. If I'm never going to kill that piece thus never going to win "kill em all" shouldn't the scoring system at least make it more difficult for me to manipulate into a victory?)


I won't go into all the concerns you've posted, but a lot of them seem to be things that are actually abused as much (or worse) now.


Note that right now while there's some support, I don't think it's strong enough that this item makes the cut this time. I'm patient. It's taken quite a while for people to come around to #1 on Bill's list and I just waited for this time to come. I'll wait on this one too. I think the discussion will keep it in the back of people's minds and they'll start seeing the abusive tactics that could be reduced and start paying closer attention to who's getting the victory in ties and who really should get the victory in a number of games and somewhere down the road there's more concensus. No hurry.


Bu...bu...bu... it is only a tiebreaker? It only applies if time runs out and the game is decided by tiebreakers.




If this is only a factor in ties then I apologize for ignorance in not understanding the intent.  I was under the impression that this was to imposed across the board to avoid ties.  If this is used as a tie breaker only then I think I'd be less opposed to it.  In my experience tie's are an extremely rare occurence, in fact I can't think of but one instance in the past two years of playing at my LGS where we've had one.


 


With that said, I'm still not sure this would be my ideal solution for a tie breaker, at least not as the primary tie breaker. But that's for another debate I'm sure.


Just from my personal perspective, a rules change like this would actually make me much more conservative.  I would be far less reluctant to expose pieces to danger and far more likely to build a team of mobile attackers who can safely attack and hide.  Or building a team of super stealthers who can 't be hit but can inflict damage.  That doesn't strike me as "engaging" more.  What it does to me is force me to find new and creative ways to either avoid damage to my pieces or to play swarms of low cost pieces that can deal damage at minimal cost if they take their allotted half damage.  Niether of which appeals to me as a player.



Well, you're just asking to lose on gambit.  Playing more conservative in this instance doesn't make it easier for you to win, trust me.  I think you think it makes it easier to win, but in trying to "beat the system", you're just making it harder on yourself.  



I'd much rather keep the system the way it is and find new and creative ways to either draw my opponent out our press my advantage when the opportunity avails itself.  In other words I'd much rather develop my own strategy on how to win rather than have the rules dictate the strategy that I must use.  I don't think it's neccessarily dumbing down anything, I just think it's restricting my options unneccessarily.



You're seeing that because you're only looking at it from a single (old) perspective of how the game is played.  You must unlearn what you have learned.  ;P  Seriously.  This isn't restricting your options.  It is presenting a DIFFERENT set of options that you aren't used to dealing with.  The strategy is MORE deep, IMO.  It just may not be the strategies that you have become accustomed to.



I still say if you want to eliminate stalling, which seems to be the general aim of many of these proposed rules changes then institute a chess style clock.  Impose a penalty (whether it be a point penalty, disqualification or whatever) on those who exceed their time limit.  You'll see rounds played faster and match time limits quickly evaporate as people are not fighting against the clock as well as their opponent.



We've been over the chess clock, in depth, several times over the years.  There is too much sticky territory and it ends up being JUST as subjective as judge's discretion on time.  It happens too often that there is a segment of the game that requires a large amount of thinking, and straight up equal time for each person does not reflect how decisions are made in game.  I'm sure someone else can explain further.



To me, changing the fundamental play of the game and how victory points are scored just isn't an appealing option.  If you want to count damage for a tie breaker, I'm all for that.  But if there's a clear winner between victory and gambit then there's a clear winner as was defined in the original spirit and concept of the game.  Changing that changes the game.  Maybe at some point such fundamental changes to the game are needed, I just don't think that time is the here and now.




It doesn't.  You think it does, because you're applying the old approach to how the game is played to the new suggestions.  It really doesn't change much.  Spend some time PLAYING this option and you'll find that it works.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a tie is because they happen all the time in DCI.


A tie is a game that goes to time before either player achieves victory. Victory is achieved by eliminating the entire enemy squad from the board, or scoring 150 victory points through defeating enemy characters and scoring gambit points.


But over time, we've bred a new generation of players that think victory is achieved by being ahead on points, whether 120-100 or 10-5, when (not even if) time runs out. Both of those are ties. Heck, 140-10 is a tie if time expires. But being of this new generation of players, you think it's a tie only if it's 51-51 or something.

If you are playing to a point win, you are not playing to a victory.  You are playing to win a tiebreaker.  That is not healthy for ANY GAME and the sort of attitude that this is attempting to directly address.  You need to unthink the "playing to a tie" mentality as a means to winning.  It isn't.


I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a tie is because they happen all the time in DCI.


A tie is a game that goes to time before either player achieves victory. Victory is achieved by eliminating the entire enemy squad from the board, or scoring 150 victory points through defeating enemy characters and scoring gambit points.


But over time, we've bred a new generation of players that think victory is achieved by being ahead on points, whether 120-100 or 10-5, when (not even if) time runs out. Both of those are ties. Heck, 140-10 is a tie if time expires. But being of this new generation of players, you think it's a tie only if it's 51-51 or something.




Actually my understanding of a tie is based on the current DCI floor rules.


Victory: At the end of a round, if at least one player has scored points equal to or in excess of the format point limit (100, 150 or 200 points), the player with the most victory points wins. If both players meet this condition and have the same number of victory points, players play an additional round. The player with the most victory points at the end of the extra round wins. If the players are still have the same number of victory points, additional rounds are played until the tie is broken, or match time runs out (see Section 616)


If neither player has scored the prerequisite point amount at the end of the time limit players play an additional round.  At the end of this additional round if the players do not have the same number of victory points the person with the most is the winner. 


As it is currently written the rules do not require players to meet the prerequisite point amount at the end of the extra round, just that the extra round be played if the point amount is not reached and the player with the most points at the end of the round is the winner (assuming both players do not have the same number of victory points).  Am I not understanding this correctly?



html_removed
html_removed
html_removed
html_removed


 


 

No, you are correct variable.  What Nickname is saying is that we have never really been happy with that aspect of the rules, because it has sent the wrong message to what players are seeking.  So, we are working to change it so good game play philosophy is aligned more closely to practice.


No, you are correct variable.  What Nickname is saying is that we have never really been happy with that aspect of the rules, because it has sent the wrong message to what players are seeking.  So, we are working to change it so good game play philosophy is aligned more closely to practice.




Ok I just wanted to make sure I was on the same page.


 


So if you'll be patient with me for just a moment I'd like to better understand what you're proposing.


 


Assuming players do not meet the 150 point condition at the end of time, do they still play an additional round?  If so, do they then check victory points again based on the half unit cost for 50% or more damage, or does that half unit cost calculation come in as a secondary tie-breaker?  Where does "Rule 6" (soon to be as famous as Order 66 if we keep this upTongue out ) actually come into play as a determining tie breaker?

There is an admitted flaw in the wording of the victory section that is absolutely going to be fixed.


Right now you can eliminate the entire enemy squad but lose (due to betrayal or starting at 149 instead of 150.) This flaw was only pointed out recently and I think everyone who looked at what it really says was surprised and equally committed to correcting it. There was like 2 seconds of discussion where we all agreed it was straight up wrong and should be fixed. Next topic...


This poor wording is also partly responsible for the attitude/interpretation you're referring to--that it's all about scoring more points. And under the revised wording this will be more clearly defined as I described above.


The goal of the game is to achieve victory before time expires, not to achieve a lead when time expires.


There is an admitted flaw in the wording of the victory section that is absolutely going to be fixed.


Right now you can eliminate the entire enemy squad but lose (due to betrayal or starting at 149 instead of 150.)


This poor wording is also partly responsible for the attitude/interpretation you're referring to--that it's all about scoring more points. And under the revised wording this will be more clearly defined as I described above.


The goal of the game is to achieve victory before time expires, not to achieve a lead when time expires.




Can we also get Mandalorian Hunter and Razorbug in there while we are at it?



My old signatures are gone!!

I agree the wording is questionable and should be fixed.  Ultimately though what would the tie breaker then be without Rule 6?


 


For instance one person scores 35 points the other scores 30 at the end of the time limit.  They play another round and each player picks up another five points of gambit points but no kill points for a total of 40 to 35.  Does game play then end after this extra round and the player with 40 victory points is declared the winner?


 


Assuming the above is correct, where/when does Rule 6 come into play?  Is it calculated immediately after the time limit expires, or after the extra round(s)?


Can we also get Mandalorian Hunter and Razorbug in there while we are at it?


 




Do you mean a clarification Jorth, or changing it for DCI play?  I think you might be asking for a FAQ change, not a floor rules change (?).

The Addtional round is where the Victory POints are say 51- to 51 at 45 - 50 the player with 50 wins becasue he had more points.

Sign In to post comments