I'd have to look at the standing again because Eric might still have made T4 even with 8 points as more people would have had 2 point wins as there were a few 3 pters handed out.

It is interesting to note that Eric completed both his games in the top 4 (including our Epic finals match where I believe we played 11 rds and finished up just as time was about to be called).

Nope.

@bill

so if I have killed all your pieces except Thrawn/Mas/Atris/Lobot and a couple mice/rodians (the commanders have never left the starting area) and we have played 8-9 rounds with me getting gambit in 5-6 of those rounds you wouldn't even consider making it a 3 point win? (score would be like 118-50 or something)

If that is the case wouldn't it be possible for some player to bring a squad that was only 150 pts and just run and hide while taking random pot shots to never let their opp have a 3 point win? You would need to eliminate their whole squad (or most of it and get 10+ rds of gambit) to come close to the build total.

It's possible, but who in the hell would do that??

It'd be like Shawn saying "I have no chance of winning the Champs, but here let me waste 30 dollars so I can give your opponents 2 point wins while you collect 3's. And if we face each other, I can scoop."

Seriously...gamers and their scenarios sometimes

Absolutely, go kill the commanders. If you only managed to kill the attackers by the end of 8-9 rounds, then it's a two point win. I'm talking about sitautions where all that's left is a 20hp Kyle that ran away in the last 5 minutes, or just a lobot at the back of the map. Something that clearly cannot win the game under any circumstance. With full health Thrawn, atris and Lobot, you still have a legitimate chance at killing things. If its so over that it should be called a 3pt win, then 1-2 rounds played super fast (as rounds should go at this time in a game) should end it quickly.

No, because you don't have to score 200 in that scenario. You have to score the total of your opponent's squad (I think we kept that rule in there for squads under the build total anyway). And eliminating a full squad, no matter the cost is a 3 point win, that is in the rules for sure.

yer right brad us gamers and our scenarios. No it would unlikely never happen. This is why the judge has (and should continue to have and use) the power to award full victories based on the game state/players involved/rds of gambit/rounds played/etc.

As I said before, I fully support the way you judged and awarded points at the MI regional.

The only issue was the fact that there was a clerical error in rd 1 which caused pairing problems in rd 5. And I agree with Mike that it would be nice to have slips to hand out like the old DCI did especially for larger events. This is mainly just to check/catch clerical errors. Oops you got 3 instead of 2 or vice versa. Lets fix it now instead of at the end of the tourney. WOTC had plenty (and still has) of these types of problems at various tournies so just adding the slips isn't really the issue IMO it is more of either reading off how many points each player has when paired or something like that.

really why would anyone want to do half the scenarios we talk about and have to think about?

We will have them for all the events with two judges at Gencon to help with mistakes and the what not.

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.

I created this when we were working on the tournament rankings. It is designed to print two per page. I sent the database, ELO calculator and all the SWMgamer ID#'s to Aaron once upon a time because he was going to work on automating some of what I created so it was not so manual. So I still have those if they would be of any use.

I like the tourny sheet.

@ the Michigan regional the top 4 would of been really different if we used the 200 or 2. The top 9 was Jason 5-0 15, Mike 4-1 11, Eric 4-1 9, Ben 3-2 9, Lou 3-2 9, Dan 3-2 9, Tony 3-2 9, Tim 3-2 9, Troy 3-2 7. If we used 200 or 2 the top 9 would of been Jason 5-0 15, Mike 4-1 11, Ben 3-2 9, Tony 3-2 9, Tim 3-2 9, Eric 4-1 8, Lou 3-2 8, Dan 3-2 8, Troy 3-2 7. it would not of changed the top 4 much but it would of knock Eric down from 3 to 6 and myself down from 5 to 7 than moved Tony up from 7 to 4 and tim from 8 to 5. The biggest change is from 4 to 9. I hope this helps people see how the 200 or 2 would make things easier.

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.

Movement-breakers and mass-kill potential (to counter the dominance of tempo control)...that is the meta, folks.

The ironic and/or beautiful thing is that squads with both of these elements are almost always able to earn 3-pt wins, because they kill off the scrubs so quickly, which makes for a quick game. Playing Skybuck at the championships last year, I remember finishing most of my games within 45 minutes.

Graham finished 7-0 with 21 points with basicly the same squad. If it's getting all 3 point wins that's good enough for me. Lancer is a tough piece to counter, this reminds me of last year when everyone (including me) was upset that dodonna was winning everything. Until a better option is given people aren't going to change what they know works.

That being said new maul is a step in the right direction. Im gonna run the crap out of that piece.

Thanks for the response. You didn't address every point, and I disagree about some of the stuff you said. Specifically, Brad and I had a discussion on facebook yesterday about what constitutes stalling, and the question of whether a low-hit point beatstick, say Lord Vader or Exar Kun, swapping/transferring out of danger after getting a points lead and then hiding constitutes stalling or slow play.

It is an amazingly fine line between smart strategy (which as you describe the Lancer and Override options) and stalling tactics. Not to speak for Brad, but my interpretation of what he said is that if a player is denying his or her opponent the opportunity to participate in combat, that is stalling. But the Lancer squad as you built it does that very thing by design.

Yes, locking doors is smart play, it's why Override exists. However, Rob created a counter in the Ugnaught Demolitionist to still allow the other player a chance to remove the door so they could attack pieces hiding in the corner. I will never understand fully why he made a figure that can take out every Ugnaught in one fell swoop, and I seriously doubt he ever meant for a squad to have 10+ worthless mouse droids just to allow for control of the board. Maybe they should have been VR instead of uncommon.

But now it is the designer's problem to solve. And solve it, we will. Or develop ulcers trying.

Perhaps, but I know that if a squad with a single beatstick was working toward the same tactic as the mass-kill figs do but had to constantly retreat, it would be (and indeed has been) frowned upon quite severely.

thats a totally unfair statement. The spirit of the game in a tournament is to win. The fact that the game design allows mass killing of the vast majority of an opponents squad without respite is not a reflection on the player that chooses to use it. Its a reflection of how design around certain figures has fallen short.
I personally hate the fact that many factions have to resort to collecting ughnaughts inorder to compete in "door games" only to have other squads raze their chances of competing because their control of doors is left to figures that are easily killed before they can do anything about it. However, thats the state of the game at the top level.



Now this is irratating. I can see the need for it as mid round strafes and gallops can be game winning. But the fact that these squads require counting huge amount of squares does leave the opponent sitting watching a finger trace the same path, sometimes several times, before the lancer player decides or not to do what he thinks he can. It treads a fine line between slow play and just doing what you have to to play massive movement squads correctly, this is exacerbated when you have both activation control and mass gallop/strafe (currently a uniquely seperatist trait on the top tables). At some point in this though the lancer player is obligated not to elongate the time it takes to make these descisions and calls for slow play during these times are often valid.

So here's a question: What's the point in going to the trouble of building a squad and sitting down to the table if the only result is you get to move ALL of your pieces and then watch while your opponent rolls all the attack dice, then ends the round and calls for init check so you can do it all over again but with fewer pieces on your side of the map and no longer any way for you to open the door to get to his stuff?