Sorry that I haven't been able to contribute earlier and end this debate, I was in the middle of moving and had no internet.

All right, so, to clear this all up: I did not get a warning in the Swiss. The only reason I got one 2 point win in the first round was because I was playing against a 22 activation Cad Bane Arica swap squad that Tim made, and I simply couldn't rush to kill all of his stuff, even after I killed my own Ozzel off first round.

What I had mentioned to Dennis involved the Semi-Championship game, whenever I made a move to kill Landspeeder and I moved Vader six squares back and behind an ugnaught, which I suppose is a very valid call for stalling, since I had been doing that earlier (I went to strike down Ferus and moved.. ten away to get behind a corner so he couldn't shoot me from a far away), so, no hard feelings there. It was a correct call from Brad I believe.

What I had mentioned in the car ride was all due to a miscommunication between me and the rules. I thought that since I got an earlier warning (the one in the semi-champs), if I got another warning, I would get a game loss. So instead of waiting in gambit with Vader, I felt like I had to rush, since Daniel didn't have any warnings and I did, and he wasn't moving towards me (once again, a very valid strategy, and I am not complaining at all). So the reason I had to push and make moves that clearly got Vader killed and
Jarael killed was because I didn't know that the warnings refreshed each game. That's it. It was my mistake, and it has nothing to do with Brad's call. I should of been listening better.

I also want to mention that I had no intent of creating animosity. I have nothing against Brad, or anyone else here. In fact, I'd like to remain partial -- I'm playing this game to have fun and create friends, not to make enemies.

Dang. Now I see where Dennis was coming from. I do remember the previous warning in the game against Philip now. I didn't write any of the Champ warnings down. However, stalling and slow play are two different things, and the slow play warning in the champs wasn't an official one (which I thought I clarified?) Still, next time feel free to stop the game and clarify with me or any judge.

Honestly, though, if you were attacking Philip's character with Vader and moving back...then I made a bad call on that one. I must have missed the fact that you made an attack. Of course, if you recall the end of the game, that was a correct call.

I am in favor of Huges getting stable footing, if just to make them more playable. BM says that there are 24 huge characters without flight. Extending it to large characters may need more investigation (they do not tower over the low terrain).

In a similar vein to provide an opportunity to use other pieces whose abilities are dated, I would suggest a change to Heavy Weapon:
Heavy Weapon: This character cannot split its movement during its turn.

Currently HW puts a big bullseye on the character. This change could make them more playable, but would still have the minor restriction of not being able to shoot and hide via mobile attack and must remain in LOS. BM says that there are 15 characters with HW, so it is not game changing if the rule is implemented or not.

Heavy Weapon is another great example of an abilty that could use a V-set ability or CE to boost them up to being modestly competetive. Exactly one of the stated goals of the whole V-set idea. And once again something that's better handled with a character solution over a floor rules solution.

I'm now done with repetetive examples. I think the concept should be clear.

Mhm, and as I said, I had no real dispute with how you judged. I think you did a fine job, I just didn't pay attention, and it came back to bite me. But oh well. Placing second at GenCon when I'm only fifteen is nothing to really feel bad about (even if I did play like a loser sometimes against Phillip in Semi's. Can't believe I wasn't paying attention to the Thrawn end-of-turn swap thing and didn't move him adjacent to the door. xD Oh well.)

I agree, the same goes for mercenary, but that can again prolly be fixed by a V-Set piece

We played a Draft with RS. It was quite fun.

In fact, that is something I will look at. Since draft is really difficult with SWCCG, they have made "The Cube", which is a set of cards to create psuedo packs to draft from. Could be fun to implement for SWM...

Here in Atlanta we have actually done a number of drafts, and really enjoy them.

Also, Graham (greentime on the boards) is a CCG player as well, and has implemented the Cube for SWM, and it's a ton of fun as well (actually one of my favorites ways to play now). This weekend I'll ask him to either make a thread about it or give me the list of figures so I can do it.

i would say like was said above, an abillity to make Heavy weapon and similar abillities more playable(Not necesarily Tier 1 but still usable) . Personally i think Mercenaries are ok as they are. Maybe a commander or something, but they can work well if you play them right. I Like The idea of Huges gaining stable footing or an abillity to do so, but i do not think that larges should gain the same abillity.

ANd to the earlier post about Tile wars , Boba fett Bounty hunter isnt banned in Tile wars, But he is banned in Dynamic duo. I still think he should be banned in Dynamic duo, Terrific Trio, Fantastic 4, and any others of the similar type to those, however i would not oppose a ban of the Disintigration abillity. If you could play him but that abillity is not in effect, sort of like Diplomat in tile wars would be reasonable to me.

I would realy also like to see tile wars added to the rules update, as it is a largely played format.

But that is just my oppinion, Take it or leave it ........


Darthjawa

I am the lancer player Dennis mentioned in his original post in this thread. The bottom line of the story is that I lost because I rolled a 1 with my lancer against lobot and then lost the next initiative which got my lancer killed, the judges did not cause me to lose or anything like that. I lost to a better player and learned from it. However, I did not agree with the judge's decision to award my opponent a 3 point victory.

Billiv15 quotes me as saying that I was waiting until the end of the time to make my run which I did not say, I explained to the judge that I was waiting for the end of the round when the judge was called over. If I had waited until the end of the 60 minute time I would have lost on points because he would have had more gambit points than the possible points I could have gotten from a strafe as my lancer didnt have twin and his pieces were positioned well enough to avoid letting me get the 30 + points needed. When the judge was called over I was the only one who had killed anything (a mouse rein) but since he had gambit points the judges told me that I needed to push in. This was obvious and at the end of the next round I pushed in and had to pray that the dice would be on my side and they were not.

The other reason I didn't feel a 3 point win should have been awarded was my opponent positioned all of his pieces worth points in the command center and none of them ever left there. He had only one phase in the entire match where he attacked, using his lancer to kill my lancer which had moved into the command center. I did lock the doors that would lead to easy kills for my opponent, but the command center has another exit which I had no way of controlling and would have allowed his lancer to access my team and he chose not to do so. I did have figures outside of the starting area, at the time the judge was called I had only 3 figures (San, BDO, GWL) in the starting area.

After the match, Lobostele took time out of his day to explain to me why the judge ruled the way he did which I appreciated but I guess I just dont understand how the system works. After having written all of this, I feel pretty stupid arguing over a single point but I will admit I was not happy with the decision at the time.

It can be hard to say without being there.

I think the deciding question in a general sense (and this may or may not apply to your particular case) is: what round is the game in and how fast are they completing?

Playing for an end of round strike is fine. Playing for a time-limit expiration strike is not. But it sounds like positions were rather established and so entire round of waiting should take less than 2 minutes. You spin, he spins, and back and forth until you're down to your lancer. So with 10 minutes or so left in this semi-stalemate you should be looking at 3 rounds of play left, not one. You should also be well along into the game so sitting around 8-10 rounds already complete, not 4-5.

If the game is slow and static at the 30 minute mark it's slow play warning time for both players, and generally neither will be deserving of a 3 point win at the final stage.

If the game is buzzing along and it's just a matchup where it's tough to put damage on the opponent it's hard to really fault anyone and warnings are unlikely.

The only case where a 3 point win should be awarded would typically be one player establishing a dominant position (center, and/or points lead) and then the opponent failing to engage even though that failure will make a loss inevitible. This should not take several rounds and significant clock time for the trailing player to establish. When you're losing at 40-45 minute mark you must engage, and if it appears you are trying to delay that engagement until time is called for a last second strike point win you are abusing the system and a judge can rightfully step in.

I think this is what the judges concluded with your game. It may or may not have been the right call, but I think from the descriptions from both sides it's close enough that it's concievable at worst.

There was a further point. We were watching the game from a distance at a certain point, and I watched Tim spin his pieces quickly (in the second to last round before the strike was made, with about 15 minutes left - 4th round or so, and after we had warned both players at the 30 minute). Then I watched as Tim looked exasperated and looked up at me and Brad with a "what am I supposed to do" frustration look on his face while his opponent took a long time to activate.

Frankly, I was just glad Tim ended up winning, so all we had to do was award a full win. If his opponent had won init in the final round of play, and pulled out a time win, Brad and I were already discussing if we would have to award a game loss, or force extra rounds to make it fair.

The problem with a game like that was that Tim had the clear advantage and was ahead in points. He was holding Gambit and you were no where near it. The onus was really on you to act, not on Tim. And while we gave the warning to both players (for being in round 3 at 30 minutes and having yet to make any significant moves), what we saw from the next 30 minutes helped us determine that you were "more at fault" than Tim. So it was a judgment call to give him 3 points. But when your first attack move of any significance (killing a mouse in the first round worth 0 is insignificant), happens with 15 minutes left in the round, and your opponent has had the lead since round 1, and you failed to move more than 20 squares from your starting area in that time (other than the lancer strike on the mouse that I mentioned), well, I hope you can see why we felt you had unnecessarily slowed the game down to a point that Tim did not have an opportunity to play to competition. Just for curiosity, how many of your remaining games went to time or close to it?

text removed, baiting

I read that statement as the judges were glad the results meant no further action needed to be taken, not that they wanted you specifically to lose because they were close to being put into a situation that's no fun for anyone. You're reading it too personally IMHO.

Yep, that's obviously what I meant by it. As it was, I was actually worried about giving Tim the 3 point win after warning both players (round 3 at the 30 minute mark), but both Brad and I agreed it was the right call in the end, and I made what I view as the best decision of it. Sometimes you have to make the right call, regardless of how it might look from the outside, and I feel we did so.

In the end, it worked out as it should, and we did not have to rule against either player again in the tournament, which is how the rules should work, and how players should respond. So I thank both guys (and anyone else that was warned) for speeding up and making it by far the most completed games we have ever even dreamed of at the championship. If the worst mistake we made was awarding one guy 3 points instead of 2, then compared to some past issues, I think it was a very strong success of an event.

Fair enough. It's certainly a close one. If both players were warned at the mid-point I'd have to see some extraordinary improvement to give either player the 3 point win at the end and it doesn't really sound like that happened. But maybe the winner really got hs phases completed at a blistering pace from that point forward. Hard to say without seeing it. The option for a 3 point win should still be there, even after warnings or there's little positive incentive from the warning.

Incidentally, giving Tim only 2 points instead of 3 would have had absolutely NO effect on the final standings for the Championship anyways. He finished with 11 points, and ended up the lowest ranked of those with 11 points. Getting only a 2 point win would've dropped him to 10 points, and he would've been higher ranked than the highest 10 point person (based on Strength of Schedule), and thus, he would've ended up in the exact same slot in the final overall rankings.

So....it's really kind of a mute point.

I am a little worried about knowing what figure is what character. If we use a Luke to represent Ben and have another Luke on the same squad, we need to know exactly who is who. Is there going to be something addressing this? I have mentioned it before and it might not be the best idea but maybe some type of base markings. I wish they made the small rings to put on the bases like they do for heroclix or maybe get the magnetic pieces to mount to your base (i see them at gen con) and u could sell them in the store someone mentioned above. Then u could color code the bases especially if u wanted to take a generic and make different ranks out of it (rookies, vets, etc.). Any way, I am sure u guys can come up with something. It will help if u state a specific figure to represent the card and if u make it a figure that can not normally be in that faction it helps keep down on the confusion ( i like having to use the rebel Mon Cal instead of the Fringe Mon Cal).

Truthfully this problem comes up even now with normal characters. How do you differentiate between your 2 different Ossus Guardians? Generally what I do is mark one somehow (penny on or under the base, use a dry erase marker on the base or on the mini, etc). So this will be no different than that.