Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
swinefeld wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
Weeks wrote:
Cool squad dude. What beat you?
You know me. I beat myself. Tim played a speeder squad and wouldn't let me engage so I just conceded.
You couldn't ignore the speeder and just chase down everything else?
I'm guessing the minimal door control was a problem on that map. (Throne Room)
Pretty much. I could have stayed in gambit while he locked all the doors and suffered through rounf after round of strafe...or I could have left gambit, ran around the map just in time to have him lock the other doors....why bother playing if I can't roll my dice.
I'm noting the irony of Tim bitching about games going to time and then intentionally fielding a run-down-the-clock squad. Par for the course.
Actually Tim would have had 9 points from his other three games.
Understood, but not really the point. Go back and read Tim's comments in the other thread. His complaint was that a player could SSM his/her way to victory now that it works for all attacks. But what really happened when he was faced with it in a tournament? He fielded a squad that drug the game out, potentially. Sure the squad was tough enough against other opponents, but I'd guarantee you based on my observations of the way he plays that he probably did the same thing against those opponents and then either manipulated the outcome to make them give up (like you did), or beat them by tempo'ing out and then coming in with the speeder until he had a points lead he could sit on.
Nothing against Tim personally, but I really don't care for his style of play. I think it is unsportsmanlike and not in the spirit of the game. I could shrug my shoulders except he doesn't hold back his own opinions when elements created/adjusted interfere with that style preference.
Well I guess I have to chime in here.
First of all - I don't understand why anyone would think it's a squad to prolong games. It has a ton of firepower and can kill many characters at once. The Speeder does 60 damage to each character it strafes with opportunist and twin, and another 60 to 1 more target. The Storm Commando can do 120 damage and Weir can do 120 damage himself. That's not even counting the double attacking commaders and other fodder that do their own part. Three minis that can all lay out 120 damage each to any single piece is no slouch. It's is a tough squad (not teir 1, but maybe 1.5) in no way meant to prolong games, but rather to dispatch masses of enemies quickly. I think I killed all of Eric Larson's squad in the final round of the tournament in 4 rounds.
I admit I am competitive. I like to win in a competitive tournament. In a tournament in 3/2 scoring - in order to do that you need to get 3 point wins. It doesn't make ANY sense to build a squad that you can't get 3 point wins with, much less TRY to prolong games.
On the contrary, since I LIKE to win, after the advent of 3/2 scoring I have been actively seeking squads that CAN get the 3 point win. That CAN finish games in time. I can't tell you how many times I have had discussions with Jake, Deri, Jason, Eric and others about if a squad can regularly get 3 pt wins. On if it can play fast enough. I am VERY conscious of it. And to try to do the opposite make NO SENSE.
Secondly - Dennis, you are completely wrong in the point I was making about SSM. YOU should go back and read the thread where is was talking about SSM. You said this:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Go back and read Tim's comments in the other thread. His complaint was that a player could SSM his/her way to victory now that it works for all attacks.
When actually what I said was this:
TimmerB123 wrote:
GOWK is just a crutch piece for lesser players, and he's frustrating because he lengthens games. I honestly don't think I have EVER lost to a GOWK squad in competition, but I have had 2 point wins vs him - and that alone is frustrating. It's frustrating when you have the better team, you play better, and you end up punished because you attacked GOWK 72 times and didn't have enough TIME to kill him, because the opponent kept making the save rolls.
Dice will always be a factor in this game. Save rolls will as well most likely. But Soresu Style Mastery when functional vs ALL attacks increases this exponentially. It can make mediocre players hang with great ones. But the bigger issue is having the mediocre players forcing a better player into a 2 pt win because of lucky rolling. Not beating the better player, just not letting them finish.
With GOWK - you can easily go 10 rounds or more, fully engaged, no stalling or slow play - and still not finish. That is an issue.
and
TimmerB123 wrote:
Sure - it is harder to get 3 point wins playing with GOWK/Zannah - but that doesn't mean people won't play them.
And since people will play them, then even if you are smart enough NOT to play them - you may well have to FACE them.
When you used to face GOWK, you would systematically eliminate the support and then continuously chip away at GOWK and get the win (pre-3/2 system). Now if you face GOWK/Zannah, you have a difficult decision: you can recklessly dive straight for them, knowing you'll need to sink a ridiculously high number of hits to kill them in time, causing you to lose more often than before. Or proceed as before and get punished by the 2 point win.
I'm more concerned about opponents playing them and not allowing ME a 3 point win.
Pretty big difference. Luckily - it's quite easy to quote things in these threads to prove you wrong.
It really makes you look foolish when you say that I was making a certain point when in fact I was making an entirely different point.
Thirdly - and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned by Brad - we did play on after he conceded. I told him I wouldn't lock the door after he conceded, that I would rather actually play then just take a win and sit there. So we did play on, and we engaged, and we both attacked, and we both probably made silly errors we wouldn't have otherwise. In the end his SSM saves weren't great, and I ended up killing off all his squad but Atris with 15 minutes left to go and he called it for good. So we did play it out, and it did finish in under time. My swapping allowed me to stay away from his beatsicks enough to take them down. Mace first obviously. It was a tech heavy squad vs a brute force squad. Of course you have to use your tech to win. That's why you have tech. It's unfair to say, well you shouldn't use your tech so we can engage - unless the other guy is willing to not use his brute force (somehow). YES, I'm gonna swap my fragile big shooter out of there, that why I paid the points for the swap mechanic. YES, I'm gonna outactive then pound you, that's why I paid points for all those activations. YES I am going first and I'm going to strafe you again, that's why I paid those points for master tactician.
Brad is a good player, and he knows the game well. He saw what was going to happen in the game when he conceded. It was legal and fair, it just wasn't gonna be fun for him. Can't blame him there. After we played it out, I won AND it was more fun.
Lastly - it's just rude to say things like my style of play is unsportsmanlike. Especially after saying "nothing against Tim personally", and then saying something against me personally. Look - I am sorry I beat your friends in competitive tournaments. I am sorry it was sometimes in a frustrating manner. I get frustrated too when people outsmart me. Oh crap, they killed my override and now I have an uphill battle. Guess what? That means they played better. They played smarter. They brought a team that could handle mine. It is frustrating, but I don't allude that they cheated, or they were unsportsmanlike, or they weren't playing in the spirit of the game. I just say they beat me.
Star Wars Miniatures is a strategy game. If you do anything within the rules help you win, then you are using good STRATEGY. To me, the "spirit of the game" (which is the vague catch phrase you love to throw out there but never acutely define), is finding the best strategy to win. Building a team around that strategy, and actively applying that strategy. If someone doesn't allow me to do my strategy, then that means their strategy is BETTER. I don't whine that they didn't let me attack. If I didn't attack it's because they out-smarted me. Note what I WAS bitching about with SSM - it's about LUCK prolonging games, not skill. Luck of save rolls with SSM is a huge factor. I try to lessen the element of luck in the game, not increase it. For someone who was so opposed to Disintegration, I am surprised you'd like an ability like SSM in which save rolls come into play so much.
Anyway - Dennis, frankly I am sick and tired of you calling to question my integrity as a gamer. Go be jealous somewhere else - I just want to play the game. And unlike some other people, I still want to play it competitively. I will still play in several tournaments at GenCon. I am active in the competitive meta of SWM. Not just theoretically.
When was the last time you even played me? If you ever want to play a game with me on vassal - I'd love to. Sincerely - a friendly game. I really like this game. I think I can show you that I don't actually play like you think I do. I truly think you have this false image in you head that is unfair. You can even make the rules. No override? Sure - no problem. I really don't want to fight with you, I just want to have fun playing the game I love. Why are you trying to prevent that?