LoboStele wrote:
But Ive yet to see any decent argument as to how it is an "unfair" map.
Easy. Maps where you are forced to always interact in 1/3 of the area at most are not just boring, but the most abusive. I suspect, if made legal, Tech would be found to be just as abusive as Geonosis was. Remember, that took until gencon 07 until most people caught on to it. I know I abused Starship last year, because I knew which side I would be on and how I could use that to my advantage. The same would be true of Teth. I don't think it's a particularly "bad" map, or significantly worse than some of the others on the list, but I certainly wouldn't be using that as my argument for it either. See below.
LoboStele wrote:
Taris is just as bad, but in the opposite direction. Honestly, I feel the same way about Cristophsis too.
Taris is an awful map. In my opinion, it should have gone as well. I feel stronger about being anti-Taris than anti-Chrystophis. Using that as your example, doesn't make me feel better about Teth. Here's the deal. The primary argument against Rancor pit over the years has been that it forces the action through the middle, but never has it been that only 1/3 of the map will see use. It also has protected gambit, Teth doesn't. Teth is quite highly abusive, and it isn't SS teams that would do it.
I think you guys need to sit down and spent a few weeks trying to abuse a map before you claim it seems ok.
LoboStele wrote:
The games are fairly predictable, but that doesn't mean it is unfair. Just because a map is boring or predictable is not a reason to take it off the map list. Because the maps are boing to play on, that alone will cause them to not get used very often.
Yes it can. Predictable games are ripe for abusive squads. You should understand this by now. Boring to play on should be a consideration as well for DCI play. I am not concerned with the average player getting bored and not using it. No one used Geonosis either because it was boring, but low and behold, it was still easy enough to abuse.
LoboStele wrote:
I definitely want to see these maps revisited at a future update.
Well they will be, every 6 months. I think it's important to send a message to WotC however, that we aren't going to settle for garbage maps that don't take into consideration how the game is played, not just DCI. For example Ossus, it is good for one purpose and that's it, a single scenario. How many of you have used it in the last year? We should be demanding excellence and not just approving maps because they are all we are being given. If WotC can't produce decent DCI maps, then I believe we are under no obligation to approve them for DCI play. A bad map, regardless of if the abuse is evident, is just a map waiting to be banned.
I for one, do not think approving everything and then waiting to see if it's abusive or not is a good way to run DCI. I would much prefer being cautious with borderline things, and dealing with the people who don't understand it. Sorry, if Teth got approved, my Gencon plans would probably revolve around learning how to abuse it, I am doing the same with Taris right now. I think Teth is actually worse than Taris, although they are both pretty similarly bad.
Open gambit was such a bad idea......
As far as Crystophis, it's still pretty bad as well. I just don't agree with the concept that just because one bad map (Taris) is on the list, that means we have to take all of them. Sorry, that doesn't sit well.