Grand Moff Boris wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
I am one of the people who has been consciously running squads that allow you to finish in time.
You mean after Kokomo, right?
.
Dennis, I sincerely don't know what you mean. I had more complete 3 pt victories than anyone that day, so your comment doesn't make sense to me. Obviously I was specifically trying to earn complete 3 point victories that day (why wouldn't I?)
Look Dennis, I don't know why you seem to have a problem with me. I feel like I have been nothing but nice to you, but you always have passive aggressive comments about me that allude to things that aren't true.
I don't know what you think you saw, or heard, or were told second hand.
I really wish you would just talk to me about it rather than making comments such as this.
Gladly. The squad you played was designed specifically, from what I saw of it and heard from the people who played you, to knock out fodder pieces in order to get A) a significant points lead, and B) a wider control on tempo/activations. At worst, you might lose a 30 point figure, but only when it no longer mattered. You could then wait out your opponent until they got frustrated enough to either concede, or go for Gambit freely with no risk of counterattack from the opponent, as they lack anything significant enough to do anything.
Your squad - which I will acknowledge you are not the only one I have observed or read reports about it being played in this way - is not conducive to the spirit of the game, IMO.
Additionally, I fail to see the point of counting Lancer square movement when you know you are just going to activate a mouse instead because your opponent still has pieces left to activate. Well, there is a point to doing so, actually, but not one that is in line with your earlier statements. I personally observed you do this multiple times.
I have no quarrel with you either as I consider you to be a stand-up guy but I do object to the statement that you intentionally avoided slow play squads during Regionals when I saw what you played at Kokomo. While I'm on the subject, I can't figure out how you achieved victory against a Vong Bomb squad twice.
Thanks for the answer. I disagree with your assessment, since I did finish virtually every game. I finished the game in Swiss vs Jake's Nom Bombs, in large part to the reinforcements of 2 treadwell droids, and playing on my map. They helped me defuse enough bombs to then make a strike against Cad. I killed Cad and then I finished off Nom, killing my lancer, but then my 2 Igs and Sidious mopped up the last of the stragglers. I killed everyone on the board (I think there were maybe 2 vong workers left, but I had at least 2 rounds of gambit) - so that is over 200, which makes it a 3 pt win. Where is the question there? I didn't quite finish the finals match when we played on Jake's map, but I had killed Cad Bane and a good portion of Drones when time ended. It was a 2 pt victory, but that doesn't matter since it was the finals. On a side note, had we played it out I would have won, but time was up and I was well ahead. I had several other games where I defeated every piece. I earned a 3 point win in the finals vs Jason A when he conceded with over 30 min left. I actually encouraged him to keep playing, but he said he knows when he's been beat. I believe I would have finished off all his pieces in the time remaining, but he wanted to quit and that was his right. I'm sure he was frustrated, I would have been too in his shoes. But not because my opponent did anything wrong, rather because I was simply beat.
The squad was designed to kill a lot of small pieces quickly, and then systematically work on the larger pieces until they are dead too. It obviously works, and that can be frustrating for opponents. Graham played virtually the same squad in Atlanta and won with it, all 3 pt wins if memory serves. It is not designed to get 2 pt wins. That would be a silly squad design in my opinion. There is A LOT of power output in the squad, but it is somewhat fragile. Care must be taken, but then it is quite destructive.
As to your specific theory on how my squad is design, there are parts of it that are correct. I do knock out fodder quickly. It's a lancer based squad, of course it does that. I do typically get a points lead, but that is inconsequential. Now you actually nailed it on the head about it giving me an edge on tempo control and activations afterwards. That is very true. What is flat out wrong is what I do with that advantage. I use that advantage to then kill every other piece. Will I lock a door when I need to? OF COURSE! That's what override is for. BUT . . . (and this is key) . . . then I open the door and lay my destruction onto the enemy. The lancer can do 120 damage to a single enemy in one phase, and the IGs can chip in another 60 each. Not many squads will last long against that. So yes, I do kill key pieces to get an advantage, but then I press that advantage until total destruction of my enemy.
Isn't that how you play the game in general? Sometimes the best move is to kill their big threat. Sometimes the right move is to kill that annoying tech piece like R2 Astromech or General Dodanna. Either way, you hope that will give you an advantage that will help you kill all the rest. This is exactly what I do. It's what ANYONE should do.
I actually don't ever want to have someone concede. I recognize that it is their right, but I always prefer to play it out. Ask anyone who plays me regularly - I always want to play it out. Heck - the number 1 rule of TILE WARS is play until everyone on one team is dead. That's just how I like to play. I don't always finish every game. But I do TRY to. I try to build squads that can do it. It would only hurt me to get 2 pt wins.
I will even go further on this and tell you why I think this is a squad that can get all 3 pt wins, and what I look for in a squad that can do this.
It has:
A) A movement breaker (Lancer already flies 24, pawning it makes it 48. Also Pawning an IG can make them move 18 and shoot for 60 damage!) In my Chicago Regional winning squad it's Thrawn, in Solo Charge it's Ganner, etc.
B) A figure that can make multiple attacks or kill multiple pieces. (And I typically mean more than double attack) Lancer does this obviously, and with Sidious it does it better than virtually every piece in the game. In my Chicago Regional winning squad it's Arica. In Solo Charge it's Anakin (unleash the force)
So I always gravitate towards these things. Yodabuck squads with Panaka have it, and obviously they have been dominant. I shy away from squads that don't have both of these. Eric's IG swarm squad is tough as nails, but it's hard to finish games. He didn't finish a single game in swiss at Lansing. No movement breakers, no mass killers. Jake K's Nom Bombs with Cad Bane is also frightening. It only had one 3 pt win at the Chicago Regionals, the rest being 2 pointers. No movement breakers, no mass killers. That is what I mean when I say I am conscious of building a team that can consistently get full 3 pt victories. These 2 examples are PROVEN to be tough teams, and also PROVEN to not earn 3 pt wins consistently, or even the majority of the time. In regionals these squads fail to earn 3 pts more often than not. SO I don't play them. I opt to play squads that can finish 3 pt victories consistently. I like the other squads, but I have had to adapt, because this is the system we are working with now.
My statement, "I am one of the people who has been consciously running squads that allow you to finish in time."
Is VERY VERY true
Sorry I have babbled on a bit - I just figured telling you in full detail my honest thought process with the squad will make it clear what my intentions are. I am tipping my hand to everyone in order to be understood. What I want to do is: Win, and get 3 pt victories. Don't know what is wrong with that.