logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:40 pm 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5344
TimmerB123 wrote:
Perhaps even part of the Sith Trials???


Nope. This works best as a stand alone tournament.

TimmerB123 wrote:
We have decided to simplify a few things:

2. Tied init rolls. Only re-roll ties if the WINNING roll is tied. (Sorry Brad, it's just the way it's gonna be)


The only thing I don't like about this, is that it goes against standard multiplayer rules that we've had for years. Doesn't exactly simplify....

Also, looking at it from a floor rules perspective, if we ever get the Ranking system off the ground and I have a reason to add "official" formats again, this is a point against it as it would go against standard...

TimmerB123 wrote:
6. Initiative. Winner picks who goes first. If winning roll is odd, play proceeds counter-clockwise. If winning roll is even, play proceeds clockwise.



Again, for simplicity, I'd like to see this stop after the second sentence.

_________________
"200 or 2"
"Consistency is the key, not crying"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:51 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
Regarding scorekeeping, that is something similar to what I did with the Attack on Hoth AT-AT battles. It's really not that difficult. You just have an official scorekeeper to write down when a player scores points. I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel on this one. The format has already been found to be more fun and the players more engaging when the points are split, the only reason I see to change is that you just don't like the idea of it in theory.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:52 pm 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5344
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Regarding scorekeeping, that is something similar to what I did with the AT-AT. It's really not that difficult. You just have an official scorekeeper to write down when a player scores points. I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel on this one. The format has already been found to be more fun and the players more engaging when the points are split, the only reason I see to change is that you just don't like the idea of it in theory.



I've always played this format as "winner take all". Points being split would be the change.


???

_________________
"200 or 2"
"Consistency is the key, not crying"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:08 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:42 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: New Jersey
There are different ways to play it, and it really all depends on what you prefer when it comes to the final result.

--Is it a survival contest?...winner take all
--Is it a damage-output contest?...score points for damage inflicted
--Is it a screw-your-neighbor contest?...score points only for kill-shots

Any and all of them can work just fine and be a whole lot of fun; it just depends on what you're aiming at.


PS: And Boris is right: it's super easy to keep score of the game with my method...we just used a dry-erase marker on my laminated maps, and it was a piece of cake. It's actually less complicated than keeping track of the score in a gambit-style game, because there is only one way to score damage, and it gets scored with every activation (unless everyone is rolling 1s) so you don't forget.

_________________
"Don't give the tool more credit than the master." --Weeks
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:56 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
thereisnotry wrote:
There are different ways to play it, and it really all depends on what you prefer when it comes to the final result.

--Is it a survival contest?...winner take all
--Is it a damage-output contest?...score points for damage inflicted
--Is it a screw-your-neighbor contest?...score points only for kill-shots

Any and all of them can work just fine and be a whole lot of fun; it just depends on what you're aiming at.


PS: And Boris is right: it's super easy to keep score of the game with my method...we just used a dry-erase marker on my laminated maps, and it was a piece of cake. It's actually less complicated than keeping track of the score in a gambit-style game, because there is only one way to score damage, and it gets scored with every activation (unless everyone is rolling 1s) so you don't forget.


Ultimately you are right Trevor, there are different ways you can look at to play this format. We've actually played it all three ways, and talked about the merits of each. And truly the way I have always thought is the most fun is #3. But then when you do play it this way, there are skill and tactics that lie in the other two realms as well, but #3 is the end goal. You can't just wait to poach kills, because you'll get beat on in the meantime. And there is reward to survival, since you get the points of your surviving piece(es) if you are last one standing. And anyways - you can't do the killing if your dead. But you also need to be aggressive at times. Kill them before they kill you. Or kill them before they can poach that big dog you've been wearing down. I really think it's the most fun, AND STRATEGIC of the three.

(#1) With survival being the only goal, non-engagement is your friend. It's a game of who can hide the best. The winner tends to be the one where the other players get into a brawl and he stays out of it. Not fun.

(#2) Damage output contest. Beyond the inherent scorekeeping annoyances (and despite how easy you say it is, it will never be easier than handing someone a card of the character they killed so they can total at the end), there just seems to be less strategy. You just run to the middle and start swinging. You pick on who has the lowest defense and a lot of HP, with little regard on if you kill them or not (Just cause a bunch of damage). With this format there is also reason to NOT kill someone. If they have Regen or heal, you'd do best to let them gain those hp back so you can get more points. I know this won't happen frequently, but I don't ever want to encourage kill avoidance. And Boris, I agree with Brad here - everyone I know who has ever played this format (beyond the couple times in the beginning Jake, Deri and I played it the other 2 ways and decided #3 was the way to go, and Trevor's experience) has played it "all or none" for the points. Therefore it would be confusing and a change to go this route.

(#3) Screw-your-neighbor. That verbage does seem biased against it, but we'll run with it. We have long recognized that poaching kills will be a part of this format when played so that you get the full points only for the killing blow. Well, when you actually plan for that from moment one, in increases strategy. There are times when you won't attack a foe, but turn around and attack another enemy. It makes it quite tricky figuring out when to put that damage on someone. And there is an inherent balancing act in this one, since you are nicely rewarded at the end if you are the last one standing (nobody else gets those points, YOU get those points. So it's like a double your surviving characters point cost swing). Lastly - This format provides inherent checks and balances between the players. You see someone is in the lead - and you can't take a kill yourself - you give the kill to a different opponent. That level of strategy makes it very exciting in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:22 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
Perhaps even part of the Sith Trials???


Nope. This works best as a stand alone tournament.


Eh, I guess so. I'll be happy if we have one, doesn't have to be part of the sith trials. I just worry that if it's not, will we get much attendance? But the 3/2 scoring would have to be taken into account somehow. I get it.

The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
We have decided to simplify a few things:

2. Tied init rolls. Only re-roll ties if the WINNING roll is tied. (Sorry Brad, it's just the way it's gonna be)


The only thing I don't like about this, is that it goes against standard multiplayer rules that we've had for years. Doesn't exactly simplify....

Also, looking at it from a floor rules perspective, if we ever get the Ranking system off the ground and I have a reason to add "official" formats again, this is a point against it as it would go against standard...


Couple of things here. First of all, I have NEVER played a competitive multiplayer game. By that I mean not a tournament or in any official sense. 1 on 1 has always been the only way to play competitive minis for me. Most people I know are the same. Multiplayer can be FUN, but not competitive. So I never even knew there was a presidence for tied inits where the tie was not the winning roll. Everyone I've ever talked to (except you) has played multiplayer games where the winning roll wins, even if 2nd and 3rd are tied. Brad - you are the rules guy, and I am not arguing that you are wrong. I am just saying it's a so seldom used rule that nobody knows about it. And on top of it, it's anti-intuative. The (other) Indiana guys were up in arms over that ruling, saying they didn't even want to play this format with ridiculous rules like that. This is a fun format, and to most people the logical way to handle tied inits is to reroll only the tied rolls that are the winning rolls. And further, I should cut this off at the pass too: If guy A rolls a 15, and guys B and C roll a 16 - then guys B and C reroll and get a 10 and a 12 respectively, that doesn't make guy A the winner since he initially rolled a 15. Guy A is out of the running after the first roll, and guys B and C roll off to see who is the winner. This is the way we (and most everyone I know) has always done multiplayer inits - so to apply the archaic seldom used rule that is anti-intuative would confuse and piss a lot of people off.

I really think that we should go with inits this way, even at the expense of it ever becoming an "official" format.

Brad - I do appreciate your input. You helped show us some of the inherent problems (such as impulsive abilities and dark force spirit), and I think we found the best solution to handle those.

I think when possible simplicity is the way to go. And in this case simple means the intuitive way that the vast majority of players already play it.

The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:

TimmerB123 wrote:
6. Initiative. Winner picks who goes first. If winning roll is odd, play proceeds counter-clockwise. If winning roll is even, play proceeds clockwise.



Again, for simplicity, I'd like to see this stop after the second sentence.


Alright you got me here. I can't argue for simplicity, and then change it in this part. Though I do like the random direction switch (otherwise your always attacking the guy to your left since you will almost always go before them), I can see the argument for not using it.

I guess if we're doing a tournament - we should go with "Winner picks who goes first. Play proceeds clockwise"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:24 am 
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 2931
I had no idea there was a standered in multiplayer formats as I have never seen any multiplayer tourny anywhere. It does seem counter intuitive to do inits the way you suggested brad. But I can say that I'm torn here. I like the system that we have for this format now but i would also love to see it as an official format. Before I say "at the expense of royal rumble becoming an official format" I'd like to see the standered list of rules for multiplayer and see how many strikes I have against me with this format.

_________________
"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."
-urbanshmi2-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:11 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
No, there is no multiplayer standard, and we ever add one, the init stupidity that has been used for years will go away. It's absolutely asinine and it's one of the reasons I refuse to play multiplayer games on Vassal. The way it should be done (and the only way in my opinion) is to reroll ties only when tied for the winning init. I am perfectly fine with two players getting a 15 and losing to a 16. It's asinine to have a situation where this happens, and the two low rollers get to force a reroll, when they already lost init. I also don't believe that was ever the intent of the rule, simply the common way it came to be understood. The original intent I believe was to reroll all ties literally - not every player in the game rerolls if two players tie. The 16 is not tied. The two 15s get to reroll for 2nd place, not for first. The way you play it in a boardgame. Further, rerolling those ties, does not mean a 20 wins init. It means you won the tie breaker with the other 15. Then when you add in recon, anticipation, and reserves, this gets plain stupid fast. It's perhaps the single dumbest multiplayer rule I've ever seen in any game anywhere.

Correct way to play it.
Roll init.
Apply any modifyers and determine results.
Ties are rerolled only by the players that tied, and their result only affects results between those two or more players.
Affects that trigger on a specific init roll occur only on the final results.
The winning player chooses who goes first.
Second highest roller chooses who goes second.
Third highest roller chooses who goes third.... etc. All of these choices are made before the round can begin.

The second problem with MP "standard" (standard as in made up consensus from years ago that people tend to play by) is the silly scoring system of "winner take all". Wrong way to play. You must score it some other way. Dennis' point system works. The only way I will ever play MP games on Vassal have been when the points for a mini are split by who did the most damage. It's generally pretty easy to figure out, requires either very simply math (or a calculator if you can't do fractions in your head or on paper) other than the occasions where healing is involved. Even with healing, you simply keep a running tab of how much damage each character landed on the figure to determine who gets what percentage of that figs cost when it dies. The reason for this is simple. MP games always go to the 3rd guy who hides and picks off a low hp figure that the other guy damaged. Always. No point in even playing the game out, I can tell you who will win usually within about the first 10 minutes. With the way I play it, each character is worth their cost in points. When dead, you take the damage done by each opponent and divide by the total damage done for your percentage. Multiply that percentage by the cost and you have how many points you get. You can even use the variant that I like best, which adds an additional 10% to the guy who got the final shot. For example, Cad Bane has 80 hps. Assuming no heal, etc, one guy does 30dmg and gets the final kill, other guy did 50 (in a 3 person game). You round to the nearest whole number. Guy 1 gets 25pts. Guy 2 gets 34pts. Simple, and that's the complicated method.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:27 pm 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5344
billiv15 wrote:
No, there is no multiplayer standard, and we ever add one, the init stupidity that has been used for years will go away. It's absolutely asinine and it's one of the reasons I refuse to play multiplayer games on Vassal. The way it should be done (and the only way in my opinion) is to reroll ties only when tied for the winning init. I am perfectly fine with two players getting a 15 and losing to a 16. It's asinine to have a situation where this happens, and the two low rollers get to force a reroll, when they already lost init. I also don't believe that was ever the intent of the rule, simply the common way it came to be understood. The original intent I believe was to reroll all ties literally - not every player in the game rerolls if two players tie. The 16 is not tied. The two 15s get to reroll for 2nd place, not for first. The way you play it in a boardgame. Further, rerolling those ties, does not mean a 20 wins init. It means you won the tie breaker with the other 15. Then when you add in recon, anticipation, and reserves, this gets plain stupid fast. It's perhaps the single dumbest multiplayer rule I've ever seen in any game anywhere.

Correct way to play it.
Roll init.
Apply any modifyers and determine results.
Ties are rerolled only by the players that tied, and their result only affects results between those two or more players.
Affects that trigger on a specific init roll occur only on the final results.
The winning player chooses who goes first.
Second highest roller chooses who goes second.
Third highest roller chooses who goes third.... etc. All of these choices are made before the round can begin.



Fair enough. I'm convinced. Ignore my previous argument.

_________________
"200 or 2"
"Consistency is the key, not crying"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:02 am 
Major Tierce
Major Tierce

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 3193
In all the multiplayer games we have ever played, we re-roll all the ties and if we get a different winner then we do. I can easily see where with revon/anticipation it makes it get stupid with 800 re-rolls so would have no problem with no re-rolls unless it is the winners who are tied.

However I do not agree with 2nd place picking who goes second or third who goes third, etc. It needs to go either clockwise or counterclockwise for the sake of simplicity. The two ways we have effectively done this over the years in my playgroups is the odd/even thing.

The other way we hav edone it (which is my favorite) is that low init roll chooses direction. Winner of init goes first (with 2 of course for multiplayer) and the loser of init chooses whether it is clockwise or counterclockwise. Makes for a lot of fun and keeps it simple.

_________________
When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:26 am 
Mandalore
Mandalore
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:43 pm
Posts: 1009
Location: Southern Illinois
Bioll makes good points about the init order thing, though unless multiplayer becomes a standard format, then who cares. As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesnt matter how you roll.

As for Bill's scoring system, I dont like it. Sure, its better than the previously mentioned alternatives, but having to use a calculator and/or fractions is a dumb way to handle it, imo, since you will occasionally wind up with someone scoring 34.2points for something, while someone else gets the .8.

Imo, the best and easiest way to score points is for each player to score points eequal to the amount of hp damage they deal. If Mara moves up and deals 120 dmg to a 100hp character, her player gets 100pts. No point cap winning. The game goes to last player standing, who gains bonus points equal to the amount of HP left on all their surviving pieces at the end of the activation when the last enemy dies.

_________________
WotC: 890/890
V-Set: 142/142

Wotc GTL: 52ish
Gamers GTL: 2 (dalsiandon, urbanjedi)

fingersandteeth wrote:
Also t4 for override and a cheeky flame.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:16 pm 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 588
Location: Greenfield,In
Disturbed1 wrote:
Bioll makes good points about the init order thing, though unless multiplayer becomes a standard format, then who cares. As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesnt matter how you roll.

As for Bill's scoring system, I dont like it. Sure, its better than the previously mentioned alternatives, but having to use a calculator and/or fractions is a dumb way to handle it, imo, since you will occasionally wind up with someone scoring 34.2points for something, while someone else gets the .8.

Imo, the best and easiest way to score points is for each player to score points eequal to the amount of hp damage they deal. If Mara moves up and deals 120 dmg to a 100hp character, her player gets 100pts. No point cap winning. The game goes to last player standing, who gains bonus points equal to the amount of HP left on all their surviving pieces at the end of the activation when the last enemy dies.


Thats is the way i usualy like it. The only times we rerolled init was if the 2 highest tied, or if anyone else who tied had reserves.weather or not the would have gotten them on the roll in question. The problem however with scoring by points is that heal and force heal can just throw a wrench in the whole setup. we usually came to a consensu about how it worked before a match began to save on argueing. But the usual arguments are :1) does the person who dealt the damage lose the points because the target healed? 2) if that person had taken damage from multiple people whose damage is healed? or 3) If we keep the points from where a person was healed could it possibly end up unbalancing? usually we just finally decided to do something similar to what bill suggested

_________________
When Life Gives you Lemons........... Squirt everyone Else in the eyes and steal their fruit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:00 pm 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 5:25 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Atlanta SWM
-I played this with Timmer at Gencon. It was a lot of fun.

-In our game we randomly setup up duos (as long as they where less than 100 points). Then we "drafted" the duos. I liked this approach due to the added level of diversity this brought to the pairs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:12 am 
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 2931
Played royal rumble a few times during the 2012 Missouri regional and had a blast.

On Friday night gaming at Rays we had 8 people, so 2 tables of royal rumble going on.

I won my table and Tim won the other

My squads were
Exile - Han G.H.
Revenchist - Boba merc.
Zannah - Vergere

Tims squads were (if I remember correctly)
Exile - Han G.H.
Revenchist - Boba merc
Durge - Whorm

The losers not in the final 4 played a championship royal rumble on Saturday during the final 4
I once again one that to become the first Royal Rumble Regional winner.!!!
My squads for that round were
Ganner - Mace legacy
Cay qel-droma - Exar dfs
Revenchist - Madalore preserver

I would have loved to post everyones squads but while I'm still sitting on this 10+ hour bus ride home being uncomfortable and tired, My mind is mush and I can't remember what everyone else ran. So with that being said I will let them come on and post there squads.

Also the first page with the rules has been updated and edited. I do have a few more things to put on there but that will have to wait until I'm more comfortable and in a more stable mindset.

_________________
"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."
-urbanshmi2-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:43 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:21 pm
Posts: 271
Location: Kansas City, MO
sthlrd2 wrote:

I would have loved to post everyones squads but while I'm still sitting on this 10+ hour bus ride home being uncomfortable and tired, My mind is mush and I can't remember what everyone else ran. So with that being said I will let them come on and post there squads.


Well, I put my squads together out of some random stuff Ray had thrown into a box for Royal Rumble the night before, after Ray had gone through and picked what he wanted, so I do not claim that there was any tremendous foresight to these, but my squads were:

Zannah/Han GH
Galen/Vergere
Cad Bane/Mara Jedi

Got very close with that crew--Jake ended up winning by 20 or so after getting points for the last piece surviving. The funniest moment of the game for me occurred when Galen had a moment fall into his lap when he could kill Revan, Cay, and the Exar Ghost attached to Cay with a single force lightning. So, I won a lot of points there, but I also missed two rolls for the Cay betrayal, so Galen went over to Jake. Fortunately, I brought in Cad Bane, won init, and then lit up my own Galen so I got those points as well. That was about half my points for the whole game right there.

A couple thoughts I had after playing two Royal Rumbles:

1. Jar-Jar. So on Friday night Bill H rolled out Jar-Jar, and Jar-Jar actually becomes even more complicated in a multi-player format, especially when that format can make up to three different characters legal targets for non-accurate ranged attackers. One of the following two things needs to happen: We need to ban Jar-Jar because his interactions are so complicated that he drags out an already long-play format (I don't favor this--I think he's an interesting piece); OR we need to make a very clear ruling on how scoring works when Jar-Jar uses Bombad and someone dies. The specific scenario where this came up was:

On Player A's turn, Player A attacks player B's Jar-Jar. Player B uses Jar-Jar to redirect the shots to Player C's piece. Player C's piece dies. Who scores the points?

This question resulted in an argument that had the length and complexity of a Supreme Court case. The basic positions outlined were:

A. Player A scores because he was attacking.
B. Player B scores because his special ability led to the specific kill that occurred.
C. Points are split between Players A and B.
D. Points are split between all non-Player C players.
E. People start talking in the Jar-Jar voice (note that if this argument goes on long enough, E will occur).

So, yeah. I came down on the side of B (partly because clearly Jar-Jar is doing the very thing he is built to do here; partly because A sets a really non-intuitive precedent for Zannah; partly because it also sets the precedent that Player A would score the points if Bombad resulted in Player A killing himself). Also, to choose option A is effectively to ban Jar-Jar (since why would you play him if you can't use his main ability to its fullest effect?), and if what we really want to do is ban Jar-Jar, we should man up and do it.

Regardless, the rules folks need to come to a conclusion on this.

2. I'll admit that, having played twice, I'm not a fan of players pleading for the player who won init to make particular choices about who goes first. It holds the potential for all sorts of unfairness if the init winner is a relatively weak player who can be manipulated by someone, or if the init winner just decides to help out his buddy or screw somebody he doesn't like, even if the init winner gains no strategic advantage from doing so. I guess I would really like to see a ban on init-related table talk. There were a couple incidents of this (and heck, I even engaged in a couple) that made me a little uncomfortable. I'm not sure I have a good solution here--it just strikes me as by far the least attractive feature of this format.

That said, I had a ton of fun playing these games, and I'm looking forward to getting in some more in the future.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:01 pm 
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 2931
Ben, I was just talking to Tim on the way home and I told him I thought it was kind of funny that the majority of the time that you guys won init in royal rumble that the player who won init chose to go first. He was shocked, because in the many times we played, we were often choosing others to go first.
As far as manipulating others to their own Benifit or to someone else's misfortune, we always had fun with that, trying to use Jedi mind tricks on the ones who won init. It has always been more of a fun format and Tim and I always have a blast with that.

About Jar Jar, I've been thinking about him a lot more on the way home on the bus last night and train this morning.
Now just hear me out, I understand people will still disagree with me and they might always regardless of what we decide. I can't make everyone happy and I'm not saying this is the final answer as I think more playtesting of this matter must be done. What I've come up with would make Jar Jar a huge tech piece in this format and make him another stratagy to this way of play which IMO is a good thing. With my idea for him I'm thinking jar jar and darth bane could be a ton of fun.

Draw fire redirects atks to jar jar and if you kill jar jar you get the points.

Bombad gungan (assuming you make the save) redirects the atks to another character.

If I atk player A and player A's other character is Jar Jar.
Jar Jar draws fire and makes bombad gungan and redirects to player B. if I kill player B then I get the points. If I am player B then those points are split among the other players since you can not kill yourself.

I think this is different from Zannah, if you atk zannah and I roll a 19 for ssm and redirect the damage back to you and it kills you then I get the points.

The reason why is that this is an issue of redirecting damage vs redirecting atks and those are 2 very different topics IMO.

If zannah atks jar jar and bombad redirects the atk on mace, then mace should be able to riposte zannah back not jar jar. But if mace atks zannah and zannah redirects the damage back at mace then mace can not riposte back even though zannah just did damage to him.

At first look I think this would be fine to play this way as it would make jar jar very interesting. You will not want to redirect to someone that the atk will kill. You would want to redirect to someone so that it would set it up so that your other character can make the kill. I think it would be tricky as to who to decide will take the atk if all are in deaths range. It that case you might actually want to redirect the atk onto bane (or your other character) so that they can get the kill rather than give it to the guy who is atk in the first place.

I thought I did a decent job explaining my theory to you but if not let me know, I will attempt to explain better then.

_________________
"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."
-urbanshmi2-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:04 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:21 pm
Posts: 271
Location: Kansas City, MO
sthlrd2 wrote:

As far as manipulating others to their own Benifit or to someone else's misfortune, we always had fun with that, trying to use Jedi mind tricks on the ones who won init. It has always been more of a fun format and Tim and I always have a blast with that.



Totally get what you're saying here, but I also think that familiarity with your play group has a lot to do with whether this stuff seems fun or annoying. If I'm playing with a bunch of my friends and we're all jawing at each other, then yeah, its fun and we can all be honest about our opinions and even joke around and make fun of each other if we think someone made a bad choice. If this is being played at a tournament where people don't know each other as well, these interactions can potentially feel a bit weirder. But I'm probably also being a bit oversensitive here--it's probably not a big deal.

As far as Jar-Jar goes, I understand what you're saying, and you're right to point out that it's not the same as Zannah (I hadn't thought of it in the terms you use, but you're right). That said, I do think that under the rules you propose, I certainly would never play Jar-Jar. I mean, Jar-Jar has one way to hurt people in any serious way--Bombad--and in your ruling, my best case scenario with Jar-Jar scoring-wise is to get 1/3 of the points for a kill, or to soften someone up on the chance that Bane will be the one to scoop up the remains (which is obviously very situational). Others might play him, and I agree that there would be some strategic ways to use him, but it's an awfully delicate strategy to pull off in an inherently chaotic format.

That said, I certainly don't think your idea is bad or ludicrous or anything--it makes a lot of sense. But I do think it would reduce the presence of the Binks in the format. But then, that might not be such a bad thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:08 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 773
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
I am not sure Jar Jar is such a problem, isn't the range for the Bombad and Draw Fire 6 squares? If you had only melee pieces to attack him it could be trouble, but I would think he would get shot up from a distance. SSM seems like it might be a lot more trouble by adding even more rolls to an already lengthy game.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 am 
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 2931
WacoBlaze wrote:
I am not sure Jar Jar is such a problem, isn't the range for the Bombad and Draw Fire 6 squares? If you had only melee pieces to attack him it could be trouble, but I would think he would get shot up from a distance. SSM seems like it might be a lot more trouble by adding even more rolls to an already lengthy game.


Jar Jar came up this weekend, it pointed out a couple of things that needed to be ironed out like how to score it. Tim atks Jar Jar but bombaded it away to a different players piece and ended up killing the piece. There was an argument/disscussion as to who gets the points, Tim or Jar Jar's player. And then later bombaded an atk back at Tim which would kill him. I was just ironing out possible weird interactions with scoring before gen con.

Most of the games we have played, SSM hasn't been an issue due to the number of atks directed at that character. Unless no one is atacking the SSM fig or if they are literally making every save.
Due to the small arena and number of atackers in there the SSM fig should run out of force points fast and just have 50/50 rolls which is then no different than evade/parry. There are a few stratagys to run in this format, and during the Friday night royal rumble I tried with weakening, sniping, defense as my 3 squads, my first squad lasted decently long that made my sniper squad do more damage in the long run that allowed my SSM defense squad to dominate the final round cause everyone else was either dead or beat up enough that I was able to finish them off with 1 or 2 attacks, thus essentially leaving zannah and vergere going against Ragnos and Foul Moudoma ( which I thought was a great squad idea but is outmatched 1 on 1 with a super zannah who is being healed. This format has a lot to do with what squad you bring in when. If I would have brought zannah in before or if my other squads didn't perform as well thus making me bring in zannah earlier than anticipated, then it would have been a different game. I played no SSM in the saturday royal rumble but i did face it, and I still won.
We finished both matches decently quick, I am really just trying to see if we missed any weird interactions with scoring. This might be impossible, but I want everything covered so I know how to rule it at gen con. I dont want anything popping up to where I'm like Omg, I never thought of that and that might be an issue, so I encourage more playtesting of different squads to see if we come across anything I might have missed.

_________________
"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."
-urbanshmi2-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fun Format: Royal Rumble.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:51 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
Updated 4/20/2012. See front page


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield