no

No other comments? I mean, I know I've seen you comment in a few other places on WOTC, but you could have said that much with just a vote without having to post too.

I actually am quite interested in your opinion on this, because you're one of the few people I recognize as a top-end player that feels strongly against a ban here.

Well...

Fool brings up a fairly good point in that there have been pieces that have done pretty bad things to the meta in the past (see, Vader, Jedi Hunter), but it never got banned. Argue about whether GOWK is as bad or worse then DV, JH, but I've been told that at the time that it wiped most anything with a force rating out of the game.

As for making certain pieces unusable, the Sith, Old Republic, and Mandalorian factions are paging you, aisle 10. Dodonna/Ozzel/San Hill wiped them off the playing field long ago. :-p To be straight up front, I think SSM just needs to be freaking errata'd and done with it. But, since that is not an option, onward we go...

As for whether he should be banned or not; if one doesn't play DCI, their opinion should be weighted perhaps a little differently, but not completely disregarded. Just because someone doesn't play DCI doesn't make his/her points invalid; the validity of the argument should be based purely on the argument itself. Now granted, they aren't going to be as affected by it, so they may get to care a good deal less. But I'm not going to outright dismiss what they say purely based on that.

Going with your baseball analogy; Bud Selig never played baseball. David Stern never played pro basketball. Sometimes there's a benefit to having an outsider point something out. Also, as for being negative, I'm trying to learn not to read tone through the internet, it never works out. :-p

Now I agree with Boris in that GOWK places a hell of a design restriction on pieces in the republic or fringe faction; since GOWK's power comes not from stats (such as def, atk, etc), but rather a static ability that can outright prevent damage, it is much harder to power-creep him out of the game. Also, there will be the possibility of something making him more ridiculous (like, i don't know, a 30 something point force defense piece?)

As I stated earlier, I voted not yet (ie, wait till JA is fully revealed). I'm not going to lie, I kinda like the current meta, at least locally. There are lots of pieces being used that haven't been dusted off in ages.


EDIT: @ Lobo and fingers : I am also interested in hearing what you have to say about it.

so you want the game to die? if we dont ban GOWK the is going to die. sales are going to fall with players even more so than they have before. whats the point of collecting new minis when all you need is GOWK. i have 600 other minis that i would like to play. if the meta is only 80 minis or so wont that kill the game. im going to stop playing if GOWK is as strong as he is at the end of the year. yeah there is a challege at beating GOWK that is fun for like 6 months at max. then tournament play over all i think will get boring. before GOWK about 1/3 of minis where playable. now its about 40-80 pieces that might be pushing it. JA might solve the problem but GOWK has such a strong CE. that with newer sets he will just get stronger overall. i know you knew all of this i just wanted to rant about it for some reason.

im with lobo i would like to know why you want him in play.

Actually, if the game is going to die, it's not going to die because of GOWK. It's going to die because the economy blew up, the miniatures alternate between amazing and pathetic quality, the cards often have the same mistakes they fixed years ago, and as far as I can tell they have two dedicated people hired (if that) to handle the whole freaking game. The tier 1 meta wasn't THAT much more wide open pre-GOWK.

I'm just worried that any time a big new piece comes out, there will be lots of calls to ban it rather then play around it. Would Vader, Jedi Hunter have been banned if it was an option? R2? Dodonna?

Hell of a slippery slope. I'd rather deal with the errata slope then this one. You could (more) legitimately argue that there was a typo on the point cost, and it should be 75, or something like that.

I'm not dismissive of Fool's comments because he doesn't play DCI. I'm dismissive of them because he said he doesn't play with the piece or play against it, and that for the game the way he plays it, it doesn't affect him. Which means his opinion on the subject is not based on any sound reasoning or experience, it's just a pep talk. And pep talks are just lip service, IMO. 10% of the time they are meant to inspire, the other 90% they are trying to change what is perceived as a defeatist attitude (in this case, that GOWK can't be beat). Most of the attitude-changer talks follow Fool's approach of, "Yeah everything about the situation sucks but buck up and tough it out!!"

Pfftt. There's a better... strike that... a more practical solution, and one that is consistent with how WotC treats problem elements in their games based on certain factors. GOWK meets most if not all of them.

I don't want Rob to make pieces that beat GOWK. I don't want an aggressive redesign of how the game is played disguised as a solution. I will quit the game if that happens. And I'm confident I'm not the only one.



Okay. Is Fool the head of DCI Organized Play? No. Is Fool trying to raise awareness about the situation? No. Everyone already knows. To compare him to those guys, he would have to be on the inside trying to change a significant aspect that is an area of contention. It's apples and strawberries.



We can't wait that long. I've been over this, it isn't logistically realistic.

[/quote][/quote]

I think some of the people who are opposed share this sentiment. They want to win with GOWK. They don't want to learn to play better, they just want the quick and easy .... and lazy.

Did any of the players that are crying for Dodonna to be banned cry for that as well when Dodonna came out last year? Nope. And I really don't feel like Vader JH or R2-D2 are good examples to compare to, as at that time, the game was really too new anyways. Vader was the most expensive piece at the time. Compare to Grand Master Luke Skywalker right now. Vader SHOULD have been really tough to beat. It wasn't impossible though from what I remember hearing from other players. Heck, I didn't get into the game until Champions came out, the true age of B&B when Mas was released, but even then, I never had to worry about facing B&B from week to week.

In addition, those were the brand new additions of OR/Sith/etc. With were actually quite competitive up until A&E, IMO. San Hill was already around then, so it was tempo control that killed OR/Sith/Vong/Mando. It was lack of continual, decent support. Old Republic went 3 full sets without getting ANY pieces, and Sith went the same amount of time getting only ONE piece, Darth Revan. The non-competitiveness of those other factions wasn't because of San/Dodonna/Vader JH/etc. at those various times. When the OR and Sith first got brought into the game, Lord Vader very soon became all the rage, along with Han Cannon in the BH era. When those factions finally got more pieces when LOTF came out last year, there were more pieces for the already stellar factions, that served to keep the Rebels, Imperials, Separtists, and NR on top still. I mean, heck, the Sith got 4 pieces in LOTF and the Seps only got 1. Which of those 5 do you see in more top-tier squads?

So there's a difference here. When OR or Sith pieces have been introduced in the past, any of them that were not competitive were because of pieces already available in the meta.

But what we're seeing here with GOWK is something a bit different. Han Cannon and San Hill and typical Dodonna (not Force Push depenent) squads would still be good in the current meta if it weren't for GOWK. Not to mention future squad builds we're seeing coming up with JA. GOWK invalidates prior pieces AND future ones completely. It's one thing if a new piece is designed under-powered, but it's completely different when it's designed OVER-powered, which is what happened here.

I hope that made sense....kind of confused myself a couple times in there and had to edit stuff.

I agree, it's been very sharply curved since CW came out. Even before then, there was a top-end slant, but workable.

The sad truth is that the game in terms of fun factor probably peaked with Champions of the Force. Yes the game has been fun since then, but when one character can move 6 squares and then dish out 120 damage with an average attack rating, well the word "fun" takes on a new meaning.



A key difference is WHO is calling for the ban this time. Bill. Dean. Me. LoboStele. 4 people who have vehemently opposed the idea of banning SWM pieces to this point. Hell at one point I said I would quit playing if they banned minis. Now I'm thinking about giving up the skirmish game and future case purchases if they don't. I mean, why keep buying new stuff if I already have the top figs?

I'm not going to use something like GMLS or Darth Sidious SM and I am not at all scared of playing against them, either - not at a level where GOWK is going to be over-dominant.



It's not that scary. Magic has been around for 16 years and has been banning cards since set 1. But the game is still going fairly strong. If they ban 1 SWM piece out of 5 years of sets, I say that's a very good track record. I'd rather that happen then the game crash because people get bored with GOWK vs. Anti-GOWK vs. Anti-Anti-GOWK and stop buying new stuff.

I didn't write anything else because I feel I have voiced it enough, i just wanted to put a face to one of the no populous.

The resons why are numerous and all just opinion which I'm kind of fed up of re-itterating as people just disagree with and the whole thing end up in a classic net war which I generally detest.

To summarise (fairly longwinded),

I believe GOWK was not a mistake. The post CW errata a long time after release just speaks volumes to me. The game had been about multiple twin attackers for a long time. Last years gen con was prolific with them (Boba, Luke SS, Han, Mara etc) and if GOWK was released as he was was initially, it would remain that way at the top levels. Fine if you like that, i'd heard many people voice complaints about the direction the game had gone in. They just arn't vocal on the boards. From a personal view point the tremendous power in the figs and the speed they could dispatch foes meant that games were decided in a phase or two. In a tourney setting it becomes a game of turtling because exposure means certain loss.

Introducing a piece that reduces the strength of these pieces on the top end pushes the game in direction away from the ludicrous amounts of attacks and DMG potential. It shapes a new game at the tournement tables and alters peoples builds to focus more on force powers or force immunity (attack scores will never go away, they just arn't omipotent anymore). The survivability of the piece and those that are designed to counter it means that the game should open up and people are more willing to break out of their turtle.
These pieces are prolific in the game and with JA many UCs and Commons as well as rares are being introduced with new force powers. Dealing with the 'great terror' requires using older pieces and buying new pieces, that prolongs the life of the game buy forcing people to look to newer sets and perhaps buy figs they previously overlooked.

People counter these points with the mentality the GWOK when played perfectly can't be beat and then great players throw out these challenges to prove it. These are discussion points you can't argue with, the view points are strong and the players skill so large that you either yield to their opinion or have the opinion ignored or worst, take up the challenge, lose and then be a statistic that only answers to the POV of the protagonist you just lost to.

But even from the great players, these are opinions, not facts, no matter how strongly they are argued. There are squads that can deal with GWOK, i've seen it happen. Yes he's tough, but no he is not invicible and I belive his power is overstated.

There is also the argument of lack of variety. Top end play has never been that varied and i doubt it ever will get to the level that people want, but that is another issue. I still argue that there is more variety in the current game than people give credit.

Rob designs sets months in advance of release. Doing so enables a plan and allows you to control the top end of the game. None of this matters to casual players because they are in control of their own rules but the design of the tourney game has to be where the really delicacy of game design is made.

You can't introduce something as blatant as GOWK without an idea of what it does for the game particulally when you inadvertantly had an exit strategy (error on release). If GOWK was such an error then why retroactively introduce the error?
If GOWK was such an error then why release a set of figures with a plethora of force powers that can harm that figure and destabilize his standing of top dog?
Particulally when these figures would be so vulnerable in a enviroment of greater mobiling double twin attackers with jolt/disintigration/evade etc.
Doesn't the nature of these sets indicate some intelligent design?
Isn't the purpose in GOWK changing the game from ranged power to a battle of force powers not evident?

These questions are rhetoric.
I've made my mind about GOWK.

f&t I understand where you're coming from. And I agree with some of what you are saying. In fact, I referenced the introduction of quad-attacking in my post earlier. Really that is where the mistake in game design occurred IMO, though some would say those designs weren't mistakes, and I understand the situation Rob was in as the focus of the game turned more competitive. Truth be told Bounty Hunters was probably the true SWM 2.0, and if the game had started out with a competitive mindset we would probably have seen the sort of design in the first 5 sets.

That said, and I am not trying to turn this into a net war because I think they are silly too, I believe GOWK is the way he is intentionally. But that doesn't make it right. Rob could have accomplished the same goal by giving GOWK Evade and Parry, rather than an ability that mirrors both of those in a way that is decidedly superior.

I want to address the following point sspecifically.



Has that really happened? Look at the standard builds that complement GOWK. Rex and Dash, maybe a JWM or Boba BH. If Rob was taking the complaints about multi-mobile attacking seriously, then why the heck did he make pieces in the latest 2 sets that make multi-mobile attacking even more potent?

One of my favorite pieces so far is Yoda on Kybuck. I knew from the moment I saw it at GenCon it was going to be awesome! But I hate what it did to the game. And to a greater extent, I hate the Lancer Droid's impact. A character that can move 20 squares and make 2 attacks on everything without provoking AoOs in return? It's ridiculous. Something like GOWK MUST exist in that format. But the problem is that I don't believe Rob correctly interpreted how GOWK squads would develop. This is more than just "growing pains," or a solution to a problem that Rob clearly doesn't intend to solve by simply eliminating Greater Mobile Attack + Twin Attack designs from his toolbox.



This has an impact on the casual play setting, too. Casual players will use what is made, and if the game becomes about auto-damage vs. Force Immunity for people who don't feel they have to use GOWK every time they sit down to play, that is just as stale as if GOWK were dominating. It removes the core root of the game concept. IMO.



I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, that is not what's happening. I would have thought that obvious by now. The "top" players are figuring out how to run GOWK in a way that overcomes the force power/force immunity builds. GOWK will win GenCon. It will probably be in 5 or 6 of the top 8, depending on pairings during the Swiss rounds and how many people bring it. "Crutches" will be the most common build.

Ahh, ok, that makes more sense.

I don't agree with the "tough it out" approach; that's foolhardy. If something is completely borked, fix it. There are no brownie points for "toughing it out".

I am somewhat stumped in how to deal with GOWK from a design perspective without banning or altering the card, or without introducing new mechanics regarding the ability to bypass "negate damage" powers/abilities. Now, I wouldn't mind some serious beating down of the "save or die" this game is quickly turning into (board-wide evade. REALLY??), but basically the game evolved into massive amounts of damage, then massive amounts of avoidance in IE. The reason force users increased in power had to do (I think) a lot with being able to re-roll saves more then anything else.

So Crack Shot/Gunner/Melee is the next logical step in the process; bypassing evade/deflect/etc. Then some defense bump to bypass that, etc etc.



Seeing that the DCI rules will probably be updated in July 1st, we're going to probably get a chance to look at all of it anyway. :-p




I'm sure there are. Now granted, you'll never catch me playing Republic (or Rebel), since I think they are namby pamby do gooders who need to be beaten down. But we've actually gotten a lot of new players to our tournaments because of GOWK. Sure, none of them ever win (even bringing Rex/Dash/GOWK) against players who are better then them, but they feel far more competitive rather then just being waffle-stomped. They see their mistakes rather then go "well this sucks". These are the same players who used to not want to come to tournaments because they would just get destroyed. Now, not so much. They may go 0-4 still, but the matches feel closer. I give away ugnaughts (I bought 80+ off the internet when I started playing) to them, and they feel like they can grow and have a reason to invest the game.

The strength of your opinion leaves no room for discussion. All too classic phrasing that screams "i'm right, you are wrong."

i've edited this part because i became equally as dismissive.

The regionals is the ideal testing ground and i look forward to their results.

DO i think GOWK will rule? I'd say yes because there is such a fever about him many people will just play him to win. Also people are practicing with him so they are familiar with his strengths.
I doubt i will play him.

Will he rule Gen Con?
How can you tell without seeing every fig being released from JA?

Deri i certainly respect your opinion as a great players (literally one of best there is). But with saying that I do disagree with you strongly.

I have seen the math over and over on him..... that was good really for me. But just to be sure I started playing him. Bill and I had a great game that at one point i missed a twin needing anything but 1's (I rolled 2 ones and it reminded me of Gencon 07). That should have been the point where Bill crushed me. But Gowk allowed me not only to recover but to beat Bill badly and the only significant loss I took was the loss of Doombot. That playtest that day was eye opening. Why because Bill was playing one of the most talked about counters to Gowk. Palps and Vader Unleashed. the game was a breeze. How many people would ever say that against Bill??? Did Bill suddenly play like he had a permanent brain fart??? hell no he played his squad right..... Gowk just overcame it quite easily.

That it self was eye opening. I have continued to playtest Gowk and I must say..... he has taken a game i love, and lets be honest I nerd love this game I mean look at this site, and made it boring to say the least.

I don't know how your playtesting has gone because I either i have missed it or dont remember it.

Right now i look at JA and I am excited what the Meta could possibly be with this set. i agree that for the past 6 months the Meta has been shruken and stale. Your completely right on that point. Gowk has made this problem worse for me. I see JA and realize there is finally a set that kind of comes close to bringing this back in order. Realigning the stars if you will. The only hold up I see to this is Gowk.

Would it have been nice if SSM was errated? Yes. Is Rob going to errata it??? no. he already did. We already know from Rob himself in previous discussions that they playtest these pieces without a cost to them. So it is impossible for him to playtest based on the squads that can be built around one piece. i honestly think he playtested Gowk with Dooku of Serrano. In that playtest Gowk is nothing. I know because I used the started to test the new maps at first. Gowk at first to me seemed fine too. But to porperly test the maps I had use more pieces. It wasn't long until the problem became apparent to me. I emailed Rob about the problem. then Nickname gave us the pre-errata version where Gowk could be shot up. I thought well he is fixed then. I am not crazy.

Well a few months later and we are right back here. i still have heard nothing from Rob about the problems I emailed him about. So I dont think we will see another errata for him. So that brings me to ban him for the good of the whole game.

i have already made a few decisions about what I will do if he is not removed from DCi play. One of them will be to stop playing DCI. This is a game I agree with everyone who has said that. But it is my hobby and my escape. i will keep y hobby. Rob should address this though either answer an email or get on a forum and talk about it. Because it is not a game to him. it is his job and his job depends on us buying the game he designed. The world is full of games that sucked and never were good. This is not one of them. But that does not make it immune from it happening.

But nevertheless I am rambling at this point but glad to hear your points even if I dont agree with you

Am I infavor of banning GOWk?

No!

Am I infavor of banning GOWk at gencon, for 4 days?

Do not care.

I would be infavor of moveing the game into formats.

Thanks for the kind words Dean.

My playtesting is not as thorough as many but reciting what i have done here would take far too long. I havn't been completely enamored with GOWK though, but that might be because every build that i've tried tends to have some focus of dealing with him and/OR the support fairly quickly. THe focus is often too much on GOWK and not on R2+rex who are the real problems. Its an interference squad after all. However, i don't have the 'answer' just a few varieties that can work against him.

I expect the variety to increase with JA.

I'm sorry to hear you say you will give up DCI. That certainly does not bode well for the game particulally when you have put so much effort into that aspect.
Do you have little faith that GOWK can not be dealt with in the future?

I suppose if a large section of the community are ready to walk away from the game due to GOWK then that is a real problem.

This is arguably the best collectible game ever made, and has been from the beginning. I think WotC could take the SWM rules and use it as a baseline for any style of mini game and it would be amazing. This is simplified DDM 1.0. If DDM had taken this approach, it might not have tanked. Even DDM 2.0 didn't look anything like SWM.

And no I will never stop playing either, as long as I am able to play. But it could affect future purchase decisions, and my involvement in sanctioned tournaments. The people I play with locally know I'm already on the fence about "all tournament all the time."

I just think that in a game that designed around killing piecce to score point or win the game it is unhealthy in a game design to have an ability to that can with some luck and some force avoid that entirely. it goes against the entire game mechanic.

The problem is what happens when Soresu Style follows this up? How hard will that be to deal with also. When paired with Gowk how high will that character's defense be and have Soresu Style? What if it is 27 or higher. So you finally hit the character the avoid the damage and they are standing next to Gowk.... It really seems to break down the game mechanics of defeating your opponent.

For me I kind of reverse it a bit in my thinking. What if we had a Vader that costs 55 points gave that same CE had force renewal and master of the force 2 and say a force power call you have failed me for the last time. He spends 3 fp and the character was defeated. How fun would that be? Not very.

Well this seems just the opposite. obi has a special ability not evena force power that SSM=you cant hurt me !!!!!

I find that disappointing in a game based on tactics that has point restrictions to limit the size of your squad.

i agree with you points about mobliing and twin. i really do. i think the too have made the game a bit easier than it should be. But Obi has encompassed everything that is wrong with this game in one piece. I get you point about gearing towards force powers. But Obi is not geared that way. His is a special ability. The force powers just can make sure he can do it.

From what I have seen of the new set (which I love by the way) the new auto damage we see is infact not new. it is pumped up force corruption. Which has never been that effective in the first place.

i am really not looking forward to Aterrian Rangers (the 12 point pieces from JA) paired up with Obi so now we have a 12 point piece with +16 attack and 23-27 defense (I cannot remember exactly ) but that is ridiculous. So it wont take much to figure out what will be played. Dylan my youngest son can figure that one out.

This was a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors..... now it seems we have burned the paper and smashed the scissors. It is now the game of the Rock. I wont stop playing SWM..... I just wont play DCI. I dont feel Rob has screwed up. I feel he has made a mistake in how he tests figures. i think that he has done a great job. His success rate is 99.9..... to bring baseball back into the conversation. Greatness is measured by being successful only 30% of the time. So I dont think anyone can say that Rob has screwed up..... he just finally has had one figure out of what should be about 1000 by now that wont work in the comeptitive game. i would say that is excellent.

No, I don't think he should be banned. Errata-ed, almost definitely, though. I think he should either lose MotF or Mettle. This greatly helps the odds of a failed save, and still allows him to be powerful, but not unbeatable. Soresu, on its own, is a nuisance, but not all powerful, and that seems to be the greatest issue people have with him. Jarael, while on a smaller scale, has the same thing. I haven't used him since the errata, but nor have I played against him, so I don't have quite the opinion much the rest of the community does. I mostly agree with Fool, though. I think it can be considered another fun (if you make it) chalenge about the game.

No it really doesn't. Do the math, it is only a very small percentage of hits. If you got rid of both, then we could talk. But even with doing that, Obi still would have a 75% chance to avoid all attack damage (other than force immune). Compare that to the 85% with one fp he has with mettle and I think you can see it's certainly not a significant enough difference.

Nope, not even close. You can base her with shooters. She has a much lower defense, and 50 less hps. And she has no renewal on her own, does not have force push or knight speed, and does a whopping 10 dmg. But despite that, Jarael is already considered a Tier 1 mini. What's that say about Obi then?

Then quite honestly, your perspective is flawed. Competitive play isn't about making it a challenge, and that's what we are talking about with a DCI ban. It has nothing to do with playing a fun game where I want the odds stacked against me. In competitive play, you want the odds relatively even.

I voted no, too. Just owning up to it. I don't have anything new to add to the conversation.