Not so hot on it being a universal rule, but this would make a cool ability (Balance in the Force!) It would need to be worded carefully.

Under your plan my Boba only needs a 10 to Disintegrate whoever I want that doesn't have a Bodyguard.

And I'm getting Reserves any roll within 3 of my needed roll which likely means 2-3 times a game.

But a commander that gives the player some of this kind of control would be very interesting for players who want to minimize the dice some.

I mean to decide what bonus you will add, but add it to the final number (similar to combined fire). You still need to roll a 'natural 20' or whatever to get specific results. However, you now made your result D20 + X.

I'd say that something like that would DEFINITELY have to be declared BEFORE the roll is made. For instance, a Jedi can't use the Force to alter a situation after it has already occurred, he has to use the Force during the situation. Granted, I know that's using logic, but you see my point.

And I agree, it would definitely have to be a bonus that is added, but doesn't affect the 'natural' roll of the dice. I like NickName's suggestion of "Balance in the Force" for an SA name.

Yep, you decide on what you spend before the roll is made. Basically, it works just like Combined Fire. How sure do you want to be that the next roll is a 'success'. Be it an attack, save, init, or map/side roll.

Ah, I got it backwards. I thought you meant after seeing the results of the die.

In that case, I think the value is limited, assuming the 10 points total. Basically, the best use would be to make a single important Save 100%. Throwing +3's around an attacks or inits still will end up leaving you burned by a bad roll commonly enough.

The whole idea is veering far away from the whole map bidding concept. There's a very neat ability/power/ce in this concept. As a general rule, it seems unnecessary to me.

A thread about what new/revised general rules would help the game would be an interesting conversation.

Well, to bring it back to the bidding thing, I personally think it's a viable idea, but I think the single roll for map/side is a much better option. It'll be nice if I find time some evening to sit down and catch up on the WotC forums with what's been going on there. I hope Rob's been watching and clues us in on what changes to expect here soon.

Let's hope so. Otherwise this big hold up on the rules is for naught.

i don't think the bidding system is viable at all.

I hate the idea of it and i hope its never implemented.

Ah, so you like the current system?

Tell me, have you tried it, or is it just a 'bad taste in your mouth' concept?

I'm for the system of one roll for map and side (higher/winner gets map, loser gets side). Simpler the better.

I don't want to sit down and start haggling for points. Gambit is a nessicary evil that is exploited enough as it is. I don't want to add to that crap.

Get rid of the crap maps, reduce to one roll.

Simplify, not add complexity. I came StarWars, not an auction.

Fingers hit the nail on the head, there really isn't anything wrong with the way setup works now.

It would be nice if the person who wins map doesn't get a chance to select side, but its still a fair roll for both competitors.

Also, bidding is overly complicated, takes longer, and offers no improvement upon the game.

So even if those maps were banned, change set up to the 1 Roll and your golden.