Yeah, that's pretty much the exact problem; it got to the point that winning init (and going first) was TOO powerful. Most people didn't like that because it got to the point that luck (winning that init roll) was often more important than skill. Init is still very important, and you still get an advantage by winning the roll, but much fewer games are decided by a single roll, which makes a more fair and fun game overall.

I wasn't too thrilled with the change at first, but then I played it. With less emphasis on init, the game got a lot more fun and strategic.

Sorry but this argument isn't going to win this crowd over. Winning initiative should be an advantage, but it should not be the whole game, which it was for a short time there.

Just giving my opinion I'll play either way but I had to try since I like one better. I can't wait for more maps!

And we are glad you did, it allows us to see some still wish for hte old way, but you can see reasons for why the new way was adopted in the first place.

I can? LOL

So do we have a timeframe for when we can expect a 'thank you for the input, now I'll make some decisions' kind of thing, or even a timeframe for when decisions might be made by?

I assume it would be sometime around the release of the Vset, but just figured Id ask.

I'm wondering how that "huge characters gain Stable Footing" suggestion is coming along.

I know of at least three who like it: you, me, and Mapmaker.

3 down, lots more to go.

Oh no, there were a lot more than just us, but I'm too lazy to go back and count.

Thought about making a poll on Bloomilk, but...

I think the consensus I've heard from some folks is that they'd rather see something in the form of a cheap V Set figure that grants stable footing, rather than just making an outright rules change. Always better to do things with figures in play, rather than a bunch of random "errata" in the floor rules.

I'm sort of on the fence about it. Honestly, I don't think having Stable Footing would be enough to make some of them competitive anyways, so I don't really see the point.

Well, some of them are just about hopeless as far as "competitive" goes.
I'm certainly not against v-set pieces that would make them more playable.

Personally, regarding Stable Footing for huges, I'd rather see the errata than a new cheap piece that does the job. It just doesn't make any sense that a Reek or a Viper Droid is gonna be slowed down by a bunch of boxes or an office chair and desk. I know that common sense has no determining factor in the SWM rules, but if it's clear that the non-flight huges need this change to be effective, then it seems like the simplest fix would be a simple errata.

Could a new character do it? Of course. But then it becomes what I'll term a "Character Tax." I get that terminology from Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. In the beginning, the Dnd4e designers made some mistakes in their calculations regarding attack values and how they scaled with the defense scores of monsters. Basically, the characters were 1 attack behind at Heroic Tier (lvl 1-10), 2 attack behind at Paragon Tier (lvl 11-20), and 3 attack behind at Epic Tier (21-30). The designers had to fix this problem, so they made the decision to introduce a new Feat called Weapon Expertise (Implement expertise for caster classes), which gave the character an extra +1 attack at each tier. Now the character attack scores scaled correctly with the monster defense scores. Good solution? Yes and no.

Yes, it was good, because the scaling now worked correctly. No because now characters had to spend an extra Feat to have something that they should've had all along. The Expertise feats became known as "Feat Taxes" because you had to 'pay' them if you wanted to be able to play the game as it was supposed to be played; if you didn't take those feats, then your character suffered and would not perform on par with the other characters of his level. As a result, some play groups started allowing characters to take the Expertise feats for free, because that is how it was supposed to work from the start. They eliminated the Feat Tax by making an errata.


Back to SWM now. We're at the point where pretty much everyone seems to agree that something has to be done about huges and movement, and that Stable Footing seems to be the solution. So we basically have two options:
1. Institute a Character Tax for huge builds, where no non-flight huge squad is operating at maximum efficiency if it doesn't include the new huge-helper character. If the character costs 10 pts, then that's 10 pts that could've been spent on something else, but now have to be spent on correcting the huges' movement issues.
2. Make a single-sentence errata to the floor rules: "All huge characters gain Stable Footing."


It seems like a lot of players want to go with the Character Tax option. If that's what people want, then I guess that's what's gonna happen. But it just doesn't make any sense to me, unless the piece that they put it on is also an undercosted piece that every squad with huge figs will want to include anyway. For instance, if there's a 10pt Fringe piece that has a super-CE for huges and also happens to have a SA (not a CE, because this shouldn't be disruptible) that grants Stable Footing to huge allies, then I guess this wouldn't matter and it wouldn't really be a Character Tax, because everyone would already be wanting to use the character in their huge squads anyway. The Stable Footing SA would really just be one more thing that makes the character undercosted. If this is the route, then I'm sure it would work fine (...but what about when that character is defeated in the skirmish? Now the huges are back to their original problem again). But on the other hand, if the Stable Footing SA is on a piece that is marginally helpful and therefore not necessarily in every squad with huge figs, then we haven't fixed the problem entirely...we've instituted a Character Tax.

So, which would you guys prefer? An errata, or a Character Tax?

Errata, easily. I agree completely with TINT on this. Its not like the errate would be convoluted, lengthy, or hard to understand for gameplay purposes, so why not?

You've both made and deconstructed your argument in the same paragraph. I agree with the deconstruction!

1. The rule makes as much sense as most of the rules given the level of abstraction of the game overall. So it's almost always pointless to argue "realism".

2. You jump to the conclusion that non-flight huges would be effective if they had Stable Footing. I would argue they would not generally be effective (which I'll rephrase as "competetive"). Sure they would be better than they are now but there are a million changes you can make to make subpar characters better through errata. Why single out these characters? I don't think there is any argument strong enough to explain why these particular characters, who will remain largely uncompetetive with the change, deserve to be singled out for floor-rules level errata. Why open the door on game balance through errata which the game has always strived to avoid? (Granted, with one exception that few would put anywhere in the same league as this one whether they agreed with it or not.)



I reject that "Character Tax" is the only alternative to errata.

You make the argument that it is by dismissing or ignoring the possible creative (or obvious in some cases) solutions at the character level.

We have a variety of SAs and CEs that are basically "free" on pieces. That means the only "cost" to them is the opportunity cost of the character itself filling up a portion of your squad. That is a fairly minimal cost, and we've established (my opinion) above that huges generally need more help anyway and that would have to come through a character solution anyway (or are we opening the errata for helping subpar character floodgates?) So you start with an SA like this:

Huge size character in your squad gain Stable Footing until the end of the Skirmish.

Then you make character cost effective for whatever his cost is ignoring that ability.

Then you give him a CE that helps some or all huge characters.

Perhaps you go with a Beast-tamer type character and boost savages. Or you go with a Navigator and help non-living (vehicles.)

Unlike a pointless (non-competetive characters remain non-competetive) errata, there are many character options that actually could do what's needed rather than be just a "character tax" as described.

Here's why not:

Lightsaber attacks should count as melee attacks. It's not like the errata would be convoluted, lengthy, or hard to understand for gameplay purposes, so why not?

Gha Natch shouldn't affect Mouse Droids. It's not like the errata would be convoluted, lengthy, or hard to understand for gameplay purposes, so why not?

Jedi should be able to destroy a door with their lightsaber. It's not like the errata would be convoluted, lengthy, or hard to understand for gameplay purposes, so why not?

I could produce 50 more but I think 3 makes the point. Errata for gameplay purposes is insideous in that it looks like a good idea on the surface because it's so hard to argue that any specific change would be bad. It's the whole idea itself that is the issuein that it's difficult to seperate actual problems that must be fixed from unnecessary stuff that wouldn't be bad. Non-flight huges are not causing a problem--they're just cost ineffective like about half the pieces in the game and we shouldn't be considering errata for any of that half.

Did I say competitive? I'm actually not jumping to that conclusion at all. As you say, a number of the pieces would likely be used more (Felcor, some savages with good CE support), but I'm not pretending that these pieces would be highly competitive. Is it really the case that errata is only made if the needed adjustment is at GOWK-level proportions? Really? If so, then why start this thread and discussion in the first place?

An errata doesn't need to put a character or squad-concept in the Top 8 of the Championships in order to be worthwhile. The whole reason why I and quite a few others have been arguing for this change for a few years is that the movement restrictions on huges are SO annoying that these figs become nigh-impossible to use, even in semi-competitive venues.

And actually, I did describe this exact solution:

So yes, I did argue that it could work. And I’m sure it will be a good solution, IF it’s on the right piece, and if that piece would be a shoe-in for any squad with huge figs in it (similar to the BDO in droid squads). A Beast-Tamer as you describe could be a good solution, but only if it’s used for much more than its Stable Footing effect. Anything less than that would be a Character Tax.

But what I've described in my post (and now you in yours) is a whole lot more specific and confidence-building than saying "We'll just make a new piece that solves this problem in the future." Han Rogue was supposedly made to counter Thrawn's dominance, back in the day, and we all know how well that worked out. Leia of Cloud City was supposedly a help vs the Super-Stealth dominance too. My point in all this is that the character carrying the needed change has to be highly competitive long before the new effect is added; otherwise, it's doomed to be a miserable failure.

To jump back qucikly to my DnD example, the Weapon Expertise Feats wouldn't be a Feat Tax if they gave the +1 attack per tier, in addition to also giving the character something else useful, that every character would want anyway. Then it wouldn't be a Feat Tax...it would be a really good feat. That's the difference between a Character Tax and a good new piece that truly addresses the problem.

This is a very helpful comment, IMHO.
I agree that stable footing on huges is an unnecessary change that wouldn't be bad. Just like all LS attacks being counted as melee attacks, etc. I'm sure many of us could come up with a bunch of good but unnecessary changes.

[Tangent:]I wonder if, somewhere (not necessarily in the DCI Floor Rules) we were to collect all of the "unnecessary but good" changes that people want, vote on them, and formalize some sort of Non-DCI Floor Rules, which would work for local tourneys (at the TO's discretion) but not for the competitive events? I know that's a whole other can of worms, but I know that a lot of people are regularly irritated by the gameplay issues that arise because of this list of 50 things that you've alluded to. I think it might help if we had some form of organized agreement that addresses these issues. [/Tangent]

So stable footing on huges is an "unnecessary but good" change. Okay, sounds good. But my Character Tax description still holds water, I think, because it applies to Tempo Control as well.
Is the Tempo Control issue considered a necessary change? That's another issue that people have spoken about a lot on this thread, and it's another one to which people have said "Let's fix it with a new piece." Judging from the meta at Gencon this year (and also over the past few years), this issue is far more close to "necessary" than Stable Footing. Is this issue serious enough to warrant errata? Or is it also unnecessary, even though (unless I missed one), every single squad in the top 20 at the Championships this year had either Tempo Control or mass-kill potential?

If we're talking about necessary and unnecessary, I think the Tempo Control discussion is closer to necessary than un-. And for the record, no, I don't think the Mando CIO will be effective enough to dethrone Tempo Control. The Yammosk (from what we've heard so far) might be helpful, but the Mando CIO won't. From what I've seen so far (granted, I haven't seen the whole set, so I could happily be wrong), the Mando CIO is a Character Tax. I hope there are better solutions forthcoming. --Please everyone, take note that I am NOT belittling the work of the Vset designers...what I've seen so far has been excellent. I am simply registering my opinion that the Tempo Control solution which I've seen so far is not, IMHO, a solution at all. I still think Tempo Control is a worthy topic for errata.--

Reading back through this thread, I came once again upon this post.

I'd love to see this be the case. But if, for some reason it's not the case, then I really want to see something done about Tempo Control. I know I'm just one small voice, but I do see TC as a real problem.

If you don't define "effective" as "competetive" in a tournament setting then it sort of becomes becomes a self-defeating argument. "I'll still lose by playing these characters, just slightly less badly" is a tough rationale for doing something as drastic as character-balance errata.

You did indeed mention that there was a character based solution that's not a character tax, you just failed to include it as one of the choices in your summary. If you mention you'll give me $5, $50, or $500 and then ask if I would like $5 or $50, my answer is--wait, what about $500? The point being, if you deemphasize the best choice, a much worse choice may actually look good in its absense.

I agree that tempo control is a much more significant discussion for tournament play and arguably problematic. During the VSet genesis threads it was on my list of things that should recieve various counters. Errata is a tough solution here due to the very real potential of unintended consequences but if there were no VSets to be added it would have been something potentially worth trying. I agree about the CIO. It's also the exact kind of "solution" I didn't want to see and I said that early on as well. However, it's implimented quite well for what it is. The premium for a direct counter is about right as you have to figure in the loss in effectiveness that the enemy paid for in the case where it comes up, just like NTMTO. I think the designers know all this and have done it intentionally. The game should evolve, not transform instantly.