Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Weeks wrote:
Bottom line is. If you play one uggie and r2 as your only door control, and only have 6 activations then ya, I'd expect a player with door control and swap would beat you. I really like brads squad mind you, it's a beat em up rush squad.
If your tired of getting beat by override you can always play more door control. No one forces anyone to play the squads they choose to play. If you run very few acts and 2 door control pieces then you should be prepared for someone to run a squad that kills your door control and locks you out. By playing competitively your trying to get wins, so don't call out a person or strategy just because it wins.
Whoa, hang on. No particular player is being called out. It just so happened that what spurned this discussion was Brad's mention of his game against Tim and the elements that tied into a related topic of which the three of us (and others) were discussing. I'm kind of surprised by your comments here as you have been one of the advocates for some of the most fundamental changes in the last 3 sets (including V-set 4). There's a figure you proposed that is going to completely shake up things in a way that negates alot of the points you are making here.
The strategy of running 20+ acts wins because it outlasts exponentially as the game proceeds. Are you saying you think anyone who runs less than 20 acts deserves to lose or at the very least should expect to? Why should one strategy be superior over all the others to the point of auto loss? I don't think that it should. I'm not saying a poorly built 6-act squad should be able to run the table, but a well-built one by a skilled player deserves the chance to hold its own. The creed of "he who starts with the most figures wins" is a bit bothersome to me.
sthlrd2 wrote:
The game should not just be about rushing in to engage your opponent or there would be a lot of useless minis.
But isn't that exactly what we are talking about? I wait you out because I have more acts than you, and then I rush in to engage and then hastily retreat before you can respond. In the process I make things even more difficult for you because A)I have a points lead that I can sit on, and B)I remove any chance you have of competing because the weakest, lowest point cost figures on your squad were the only available options for utility. So it's not that a high-act squad doesn't rush in, it just does so in a way that allows it to do so without any risk of the other squad interacting in the game.
Quote:
Thus the reason for alternate forms of play like royal rumble which I get the idea that you would really like Dennis.
I like the skirmish game well enough, too.
For what it's worth my squad had 12 activations (and I usually brought in 2-4 more). That's not that crazy.
And if you look at last year's GenCon top 8, it wasn't the very high activation squads that made it. Only one lancer squad made it, and it has under 20 activations. Of course several Yodabucks and Anakin solos made it, which take care of tons of small pieces in one turn. There was one very high activation squad that just missed by placing 9th. My point is this - it is a tough strategy, but not unbeatable. Clearly proven by last years results.
Much higher activation counts were present the year before, especially in the 1st and second place squads of Brandon Pyle and Daniel Stephens.
Brandon DEFINITELY had the "out-activate then smash" sort of squad. I am not disparaging it, it was a smart squad for that meta played well.
Anyway - this is how the Meta is played. You figure out a strategy (whatever legal strategy), and try and beat the other player.
I play plenty of other "fun" games. Games where we make up different goofy rules. Games where you are forced to prioritize different things. One of the things I love about minis is how many infinite possibilities there are. But anyone that goes to a competitive tournament has to be prepared to lose. Sometimes in a manner of which it feels like their getting spanked, often since they can't even attack them back. And if losing is not fun for them, then they either need to build a better squad and/or play better - or maybe they shouldn't play in competitive tournaments. Stick to the house games where you can make whatever rules you want.
I still remember my game vs Shinja 3 years ago in the World Championship. It ended like 5-15. It was like a tense chess match the whole time. He won because he had a sound strategy and a team build to beat mine. He impressed me. I didn't complain because he wouldn't let me engage - he outplayed me. He earned the win. It was frustrating, but really I was mad with myself, not him or his play style.
Forcing your opponent to play YOUR game has always been, and will always be a major part of STM. When you have a brute force squad - getting in their face and tearing them up is YOUR game. So of course the opponent is going to try and avoid that. That's how the game works.