Just thought of this reading some of the other threads.

GOWK
Atris
Luminara JM
Barris JK
R2 astro
Geno
Ugo


Against any non - vong squad it makes luminara and barris nearly impossible to hit and also makes them almost never miss. Leminara and barris at a 32 base defense (36 in cover) are very hard to hit. Almost everyone has to roll near crits from range (and then then can be sorustlyed away. Even a galloping momentous yobuck needs a 10 to hit. Until of course Atris gets hit. Def would a tough squad in a lot of matchups.

Eventually you have to close in though, unless you're happy with a 2 point win. Then you'll lose Soresu Style. Defense doesn't usually win games, but I'd like to see a couple of squads where that's feasible. This just might be. Melee based squads would be a huge detriment to you, as even if they only get half their damage potential down on you, it will still outweigh yours.

I like atris to boost attacks of commanders in republic like Captain Rex up to +16 per shot.

Yeah, that's true, but here he's used Atris to boost Barris to +21 per swing and Luminara to +23 per swing

Ya thats high but there max damage per round when moving is just 40 between those 2.

As noted in my first comment.

Get to gambit and hold gambit and make them come to you? Should you really be forced to engage when you hold the center of the map? This is one of those squads that defines the age old what defines a victory question?

You guys are right that it would get a lot of 2 pt victories but those would be because the opp refused to engage? Why should i have to leave the gambit area to chase you down when you aren't willing to come engage?

Just food for thought, and yeah it would be rough against some of the uber-powered vong squads (GOWK +4+4) could be tough.

I would not call some one for stalling if a major piece is holding gambit, or if their opponent does not hold it at all.

I know that I wouldn't be stalling. But would the opponent (the one refusing to engage?) that is where it gets tricky and where parts of the slow play/stalling argument go into a very gray area.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your Bariss is in Gambit. None of his pieces are. From here it would depend on the round, almost every map on the Restricted list can get you to gambit by round 2. There are various other minor factors that may or may not be considered, but yeah he probably needs to engage you.

But by the rules I also need to try and engage him as well because without engagement then I certainly won't reach 200. Even if we play 10 rds I would have 50 gambit and win 50-0 or 50-3? We aren't slowplaying if we can fit in 10 rds. Basically the gray area is who should have to engage first (ie walk around the corner into the death trap?) The answer has always been that no one should have to walk into a death trap (suicide spot or whatever) but if nobody does then no one will reach the build total. so even tho you can fit in 10 rds or 20 or whatever and no one reaches the build total are you both stalling?

Like I said, a lot of factors to contend with. A big one is, is it his map? Then he should have designed his squad or chosen his map a little better.

You're right that you have to engage as well, but not over-engage when he has refused to already. Really there is no simple answer, but given the scenario you painted, then stalling would likely be ruled in your favor 95% of the time.

The rules clearly state that you should play the game with the intent to finish within the time limit. Finishing the game is reaching the full point limit, or 200 points in this instance. So, if I were judging, and you were consistently winning games by camping in gambit and refusing to engage the opponent, then you would get slow play warnings. Playing a squad like this in that manner would NOT be doing so with the intent to finish games within the time limit.

That doesn't make it a bad squad archetype though. Get ahead in gambit, and then go after the opponent. At the same time, I'd likely give the opponent a warning for slow play as well if they weren't getting into the gambit zone or engaging either.

But at the same time he shouldn't be expected to chase his opponet 3/4 of the way across the board! So yeah, as you can see, lots of factors, sometimes not always clear.

No, he shouldn't, that's why both players would get a slow play warning. Because the guy who is losing has the prerogative to engage and do something to try and win the game. Non-engaging is slow play though, no matter who's winning, at least in my book.

I could see that if he had brought lone Camaasi Noble or some such nonsense up into Gambit, but a major piece. It's a tough call, and I'd likely have to watch a few phases or so, but I see this one likely going in Jason's favor.

As Jason's opponent, I'd take your slow play warning just so he got one too and came out to base me. Then use my Double Twin or whatever to kill him.

This is why I stopped playing tournaments. If I took the center of the map and my opponent refuses to engage, suddenly it's my fault and I am expected to make poor choices that guarantee a game loss or be warned for not doing so. Somewhere along the way good strategy got supplanted with fast reckless play.

Yeah, I never liked the slow play concepts at the start for that very reason. The method for the awarding of slow play warnings has always seemed a bit arbitrary to me. If I have the lead and I'm in gambit, then I think my opponent should have 2 options: 1) come at me, or 2) concede a full victory. But then, I don't know the ins and outs of the rules the way that a judge does, and so I'm not a judge, and so I am probably missing something. However, despite my reservations about slow play (both initial and continuing), seeing all the games this year move along at a much faster pace has made me glad that we made the adjustment. There were very few timed victories in the 2010 championships, which was a tremendous improvement from 2009.

I just got around the whole slow play issue by playing Skybuck...most of my games were completely finished after 45 minutes, if not earlier.

Seems like you have to me...at least as far as I would call it.

Well, in all honesty, as a judge, if I saw someone consistently playing a squad this way, and only racking up 2 point wins, then I likely wouldn't give them a slow-play warning. Playing that way would be hurting themselves, and themselves only. For instance, there were some players in the Champs this year that were 4-3 or 5-2, but would've been no where near close getting into the top 8 because they had all (or all but 1, maybe) 2 point victories.

So, when I say that I would hand out a warning, I don't know if it would be a solid, recording warning. Maybe more of a reminder that "hey, playing that way, you won't have a shot at winning the whole thing."

Dennis, I understand your frustrating about it, and in that sense, then the opponent would definitely be the one getting the slow play warning. Once you are behind on points, it is that player's responsibility to engage and try to get back ahead, and win the game before the time limit is up. A squad like this one would get creamed if it left the gambit area and had to engage the enemy, so I would agree, that sound strategy in this instance would be to stay in the middle.

However, it has been ages since I saw a game where only one player had a piece in gambit, or was ahead on points simply by having one more round of gambit. If we're playing in a high-level event and I see a squad like this get put down on the table opposite from me, you can bet that part of my strategy to start with will be to make sure I have something that can also get gambit on Round 1. So that's how I would see this type of squad playing out most of the time, as a stale-mate, because both players are tied for gambit, and neither wants to leave the safety of their wall in order to engage the other guy.

All said and done, I just don't see this being competitive anyway though. Too many things that could move in and pick off little things and then retreat. True, hitting Barris might be tough, but with some good focus-fire attacking, hits would get through. Plus, all it takes is losing init a couple times, and the pieces would get pounded before Atris could activate Meditation. Or, a smart player does their rounds fast enough to where Atris runs out of FPs.