Nickname... I'd hug ya, but I'm not in NoCal yet. I SO hope your suggestions are adopted... would make a massive change to the upside.

Two things about this point...

1) Generally only 1 <40 HP character will be in danger and only if you also lose init. You'll be able to protect 2 per phase generally. So, yes, advantage shooters, but only at the start. They have to close after that to a distance that is considerably more melee-friendly.

2) Even good setup can be in danger against the right squad--and if the player chose Outpost then they're probably fielding a squad that takes advantage of it.

So yes, it's pretty obviously gives an early advantage to shooters, but it's not a beginning-to-end advantage like Mustafar or Geonosis (or Ossus). I wish there were a couple more safe squares in the corners on both sides to solve the vulnerable commander issue but you can't have everything. I think the map has enough strong points that its a very close call.

Honestly though, there aren't that many squads that are completely reliant on a <40 HP character. R2 and Mas are the main ones that come to mind. Maybe San Hill, Ozzel, Lobot, are some of the others.

However, on Echo Base Outpost, there's something to remember here. If you win map side choice, you can choose the right side of the map that does give you the 2 completely safe squares at the bottom. If you lose side choice, your opponent either has to make you choose (in which case you can take the good side again) or you get to set up in response to him. Then, depending on how the opponent sets up, you can set your pieces accordingly, and hope to defend against losing one of your commanders right away.

You won't be able to defend them every round, but you at least force the opponent to make more of a choice. Whereas on Mustafar and Ossus, if the opponent wins map choice, you know which side he'll pick every single time.

Yep. I agree with you. I was just pointing out the entire situation. Full disclosure and all.

It will also help if the suggestion for "winner chooses map, loser chooses side" gets added to the DCI rules. It improves a lot of problematic situations.

I still dislike this for the same map scenarios... you want to lose map roll so you get side roll? It is a penalty for winning?

Nah, because when you run a shooter squad and come across a melee squad (or vice versa), those are the best times for you to choose the map you play on. When the squads are basically even, then 'winning' the roll is winning the side choice.

It helps, but it doesnt solve the problems. Melee squads on Mustafar are still not going to win from the right side against a shooter team.

You misunderstand. We both bring the hardboard map. I want to lose the map roll so I can pick the better side. How does this make sense?

It's all about your point of view.

If we both have the same map, then I say 'winning' the map/side roll is rolling lower than my opponent. Just like when I'm trying to Dominate my own character.

Also, I thought NickName's suggestion all along was that whoever won the roll got to choose whether they wanted to pick the map or the side. If they defer, the opponent chooses the map, and then the winner of the roll chooses the side. At least that's how I thought I remembered talking about it previously.

There is no "winning" under the proposed system. There's just a different situation for being the high or low roller. You improve your chances of the roll not being disadvantageous to you by bringing a map you can play from either side. Indeed, one might argue, you actually "win" by rolling high on a balanced map as the advantage goes to the player who gets their map, and also gets to see their opponent set up first.

It does not solve problems with range vs melee as Bill mentions. But it does improve pre-game balance, discourage imbalanced maps, and speed up the pre-game procedure slightly.

The only difference is really getting past the "I won" concept and realizing before the change you have a 50% chance of getting what you want, and after the change you have a 50% chance of getting what you want--it just won't always be on the high roll.

Those advantages seem to balance each other. Could it be that the winner of the role chooses which set of advantages that he wants?