billiv15 wrote:
As promised, I have been working on things I think we need to change for a while. Here are my proposals. Note, while I think each of them is a good idea, that does not mean we have to adopt everyone.
#1 - and this is regardless of number 2. We need to create a "Championship Format" for competitive play. Nickname's idea and I support it, is to change the Floor rules from focusing on the specific rules for different point limits, and instead use 3 new formats, that can be reported at any point level for DCI play.
I agree fully with this idea. I think the restricted map list for the "Championship" format is exactly what the game needs, plus it allows the majority of LGS's to run "Open" format, and utilize ALL the maps that WOTC makes available. I think this actually manages to have a "best of both worlds" thing to it, which is great.
Quote:
#2 - If we don't completely like #1, option 2 is moving the championship to 200pts. A 200pt champ, would create other issues, which I will deal with in #3. But it will also have a hyper restricted map list using the "championship format" even if that list might not be exactly the same.
I'm OK either way on this one. Most of my 200 point games at GenCon either finish within the time limit, or at least pretty close. Perhaps could look to making them 70 minute rounds if we went to 200 points. If #1 goes through though, I don't see as much reason for #2.
Quote:
#3 - Stalling and slow play. I will be writing a couple of floor rules updates regarding these issues. First, I will be adding the following:
Slow Play: Appropriate play speed is a speed that allows both players the opportunity to score the victory points of the format under the time limit. This does not mean that every single game will finish in time and it is judges discretion. In general, if games are going to the time limit with neither player reaching the point limit then the following are good guidelines to decide if slow play was in fact occuring. In a 100pt game 10 or more rounds were played. In 150pt or 200pt game, 8 or more rounds were completed. It is suggested that any game going less than 8 rounds without either player getting close to the victory conditions be considered grounds for a slow play warning for one or both of the players. It is the responsibility of the judge to maintain a fair game, and shrinking the game down to a low number of rounds restricts the ability of either player to complete the game.
I still think the following line that I suggested previously could be a good addition here:
"Judges should consider adding one or more rounds of additional play if it is both obvious that Slow Play has occurred and if adding additional rounds would allow one or both players to gain a significant number of victory points (i.e. if a key figure(s) has a high chance of being defeated in the next round)."
Personally, I hate the idea that if one player has been moving slowly, the other player gets within 1 round of finally beating that person, but time runs out and they end up losing. Judges should be reminded that they have the authority to grant extra rounds so that the game achieves it's TRUE outcome, not just whatever outcome it is at that round. If the game is such that Player A has been soundly "beaten", but has managed to stay 3 points ahead, simply because all his pieces are at 10 HP, but none are dead, then it judges should realize that Player B will quite likely be solidly winning after 1 more round, and therefore grant that extra round of combat.
However, if suggestion #6 is put into action, perhaps this becomes a mute point.
Quote:
Stalling: Intentionally slow playing a game. Stalling can also be an escalation for a player warned about slow play earlier in the game or tournament, but can also be a stand alone offense. It is defined as knowingly slowing the game down to prevent your opponent from having a legitimate chance at winning the game from it's outset. (Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so). Slow play is a warning, and the judge should ask the player to move faster, and add as many rounds to play as necessary to reach a fair outcome. In many situations, a fair outcome cannot be reached, and in those cases, the judge should escalate it to stalling and issue a DQ from the game. For example, in a case where one player has been slow playing the entire time, has been warned, and still continues to turtle and hide his pieces from being defeated, after gaining a small points lead. Players should be encouraged by the judges to watch the time, and compare that to how fast their rounds are going. For example, in a 150pt game, if the minimum is considered 8 rounds, then an average round should not take more than 8 minutes. Players should also inform the judge as early as possible that a game is being played slow, so that the judge can watch it and issue warnings as appropriate.
I'm still not in favor of how that's worded. I do agree that a player shouldn't be forced to CHANGE their playing speed. But judges should also be aware of what is going on in a game, and whether the player needs 20 seconds, or 2 minutes in order to figure out a LOS. Yes, sometimes there are legitimate reasons to talk extra time to find a safe spot to hide. But there have been plenty of times where I've seen someone waste 3 minutes trying to hide one piece, when they really only had 1 option that they already noticed 15 seconds into their LOS checking. Granted, they are looking for a better option, so I can understand that. But what they end up doing is causing the game to go one round less, and when the other player inevitably rolls that 1 which would've won them the game, well, then what do you do?
No, players shouldn't be forced to speed up unnecessarily. But judges should also keep people from taking more time than necessary at the end of a round, even if it is to their advantage. Most times that people try to stall at the end of a game, is because they are more or less beaten, and the only way they can win is to hope their last big piece stays alive. Well, yes, finding a good hiding spot is one way to do that, but it's also a way to stall and keep the opponent from getting any more rounds of attacking. In 90% of those situations that I've seen, if the game was played without a time limit at that point, it would be obvious who would win and who would lose.
I'd just like the Stalling aspect of things to take that into account. No, players shouldn't be forced to speed up if it is to their disadvantage. But they shouldn't be allowed to play slower either. And if it is possible for them to speed up, whether it's to their disadvantage or not, per the "spirit" of finishing the game within the time limit, they should be speeding up their play appropriately.
Quote:
#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points.
I could go either way on this one. On the one hand, I agree with NickName, that a 5-3 lead is no different than the 5-0 really. All it would do is serve to decrease the usefulness of Universe Lobot, which has already gone down a little bit due to Lobot CLO. I'm OK with it either way, but in general would disagree at this point I think.
Quote:
#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.
There are a ton of different opinions regarding GOWK out there. This one has been fine with me for the most part. Even without taking away MOTF2, I like the rest of this change, as it means pieces like the IG-86 Droids or Darth Bane have a niche to some degree. I'd almost rather see Mettle come off of him rather than MOTF2, but I don't feel strongly either way.
Quote:
#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).
I think this is a great idea, and as I said above, should alleviate problems where players run at the end of a game just to keep the small points lead. If it's a close game and that 1/2 points would put the other player in the lead, then it will force people to play to engage, rather than run. If who wins will not change based on the 1/2 points idea, then it's likely that one player was fully in command of the game anyways, and so should still be a good indication of the rightful winner. I personally think this one would make a nice impact on the end-of-game-stalling-to-hide-a-key-piece problems.
Quote:
#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.
Makes sense, and I see no reason that this shouldn't be in there already. Just no one has thought about abusing it yet. Typically, it's tough to get that 51 point lead and then hide ALL of your pieces. I realize Teth gives that sort of option, so I think this change will be a good one.
Quote:
#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.
Sure, works for me! I'd almost be fine with saying that the top 8 for the National Championships have no time limits for the game, but that the Judges caution all players to proceed under good sportsmanship and play with a 1-hour limit in mind.