Fingersandteeth wanted to run this poll here on gamers, but had some technical difficulties, so I am helping him out.



My only question is why nickname him FlObi? Funny yes, but seems to be too much of a leap.

I still think changing SSM to be like Parry+Evade is OK. OWKJG is still fairly powerful with it that way. However, I still think that GOWK would need some other change as well, either losing Mettle or MOTF2 as well. Personally, I think GOWK's CE is still WAY better overall than OWKJG, so just changing the definition of SSM isn't enough, IMO.

Removing Mettle and MOTF2 from GOWK would be OK with me at this point I guess, and just leave SSM the way it is.

I really liked the idea of making SSM a 'save to avoid the first 20 points of damage from an attack' . Like a force free Force Bubble. It still blocks most of the damage, and sometimes all damage, but there is still the likely hood of taking him down slowly. Crits would become effective and 30 damage shooters would be great.

It's probably gonna surprise the hell out of a lot of people but I actually voted, no changes and reintroduce GOWK as is.

As one of the people who urged the decision for GOWK to be banned, I'm embarrassed and disappointed by the whole thing. It's just more evidence that the people in charge of making the game just aren't paying all that much attention, and it's clear to me now that the people at WotC who approved the recommendation about GOWK didn't really consider the already-designed-in-the-can addition of another Obi variant when mulling over the community outcry.

This is just another example of why I think WotC needs to be doing this themselves, and not putting it on the community to make things happen. That is not a knock on Dean or Jim, but dammit, crap like this just leaves egg on our face - especially Dean who worked so fbomb hard on the DCI document, and wrestled with the decision right up until the day he submitted the proposed DCI floor rules update.

I say if this is how they feel then just unban GOWK and pretend like none of this ever happened.

I voted not enough information yet (same on Bloo). @Boris - I think you forgot the advice you gave Jonny in the GAW thread.

I see a couple of issues to this.

1) The options left to deal with GOWK are now limited, and it explains a couple of things that I heard about changing GOWK. I suspected another SSM figure was already made based on some conversations, and this confirms it. In particular, the two options fed back to us were make changes to the card, not to the ability, or change the cost for GOWK.

2) Whether or not FLOBI is broken is a discussion to be had in late October or November, which is probably when we can again address GOWK accurately. I predict he won't be, but that remains to be seen.

3) GOWK was clearly drastically undercosted. Look at the major differences here people. Flobi costs 11 more points, has a less powerful CE (I can prove that with math, but it's a bit convoluted), loses renewal, direct damage, motf2, and master speed. For those loses and the increased cost, Flobi gains surprise move and flight.

If we consider Surprise move and Master speed as a basic wash, then basically Flobi pays 11 points, plus losing motf2, push3, renewal and a weakened CE all to gain flight? Who on earth honestly believes that's a comparable figure? By comparison, GOWK should be something like 85 points. Flight isn't even as good as it normally is on these figures, because GOWK is already immune to 50% of AoOs because of SSM. The only small advantage is the ability to move through opposing figure's spaces, and the synergy with surprise move. Well Boba Merc has that, and he only costs 58, and has hardly been called broken.

All of this is to say that GOWK by comparison is dramatically over costed at 55 points. Who knows, perhaps WotC did pay attention and they caught Flobi in time to change his cost. Perhaps we might have gotten a 48pt Flobi otherwise In all reality, what we have all long suspected, that they tested GOWK against the starter contents, seems to have been true. It was a mistake, pure and simple.

4) So finally, what are we left with? Since another SSM figure is to be released, we have to understand that an errata to SSM changes both. I believe that Flobi is balanced enough at that cost to be ok. So for the moment, let's assume he will be, and let's make the assumption that he is playable at the top tiers and competitive enough in squads. Any change to SSM that is enough to balance GOWK, will make Flobi significantly overcosted and remove him from competitive play. Anything less, makes GOWK too powerful at his cost, and arguable, makes Flobi always over costed in comparison to a legal GOWK. So an errata to SSM like many of us wanted seems to be off the table. Now we are left with only the counter proposals of changing GOWK's card, or simply leaving him banned.

What is enough to bring GOWK back? In my book, it isn't perfect, but I think it's doable, is removing motf2 and changing his cost to 65. Alternately, I think we might have to get more creative and change his CE to something like, "+4/+4 to unique Republic force users" and remove motf2. In the end, we probably have to accept that a perfect solution isn't going to come, so we will have to pick one of the solutions that doesn't really solve all the issues, but is the best we can if we want to bring GOWK back.

Very good post. Bang on about SSM, and the comparisons of FlObi and GOWK.

As for GOWK, simplicity is the key. The idea of removing MotF2 and recosting him to 65 seems like enough of a change to make him less broken. At 65 though, he'd almost be tougher in Dynamic Duo with Qui-Gon JM.... maybe 64 then?

Possibly, lol. But that insert sure has an "FU people" tone to it. And btw Bill, you forget who you are talking to. How often do you know me to speak without feeling confident about my interpretations...

As for the rest, yeah there are some good suggestions there. However, I stand by the opinion that the community members shouldn't be making the decisions for the company when they clearly have more information than we do, and have different plans that haven't been shared with the public yet.

Yep, really don't disagree. The alternative is to get the "volunteers" more information however, which is an equally valid option to taking away any decisions made by the community. Further, I think it's important to remember that this one was agreed to by WotC design team and taken seriously by some significant people before agreeing with Dean.

...

Okay I tried 4 times to respond and I deleted all of them before posting this response. Factually correct Bill, but that's probably all I should say about it.

I like the Parry/Evade change to SSM, plus removing other abilities from GOWK as necessary level him out.
And/or re-cost him much higher.

I like GOWK's CE a lot, but it also makes a few other Repub characters extremely hard to take down.
As to Bill's comment in his last paragraph a few posts above, if GOWK's CE needs to be changed, I feel it should be pretty much opposite of what he said. Boost the little guys, not the mid to high powered units.

And as I also commented on Bloomilk - GM Yoda is fine for his CE, but who do you Panaka swap him with? He is not a replacement for GOWK in all cases...

Just my 2 cents, but we all know 2 cents doesn't get anything these days

Now, when I suggested that on our test call for the Sith Holo News Network, didn't you and Dean tell me I was wrong and that GOWK was still broken?

Hence the "it isn't perfect" point And to be clear, I wasn't supporting a particular option at this time, just laying out the line of thinking I am going down with this one right now. Still trying to factor in all the information to make a good recommendation. SSM cannot be changed, simplist change possible, etc.

Way to not make my own point, which was that using Yoda as a sub for GOWK's CE means you lose a good swap option. Obviously you can't Panaka swap Yoda with anyone, duh!

I need to hire a proofreader, as I obviously can't rely on myself

I voted for changing SSM. I'd like to see GOWK and SSM reintroduced with the following errata:

- When hit by an adjacent attack, a successful (SS) Mastery save will negate 20 damage.
- A (SS) Mastery save against an adjacent attack may be rerolled at a cost of 2 Force Points.
- (SS) Mastery saves may only be used on a turn when the character does not move. (SS) Mastery can't be used to negate against attacks of opportunity.

These particular changes would aim to accomplish the following:

- Balance GOWK with an errata to SSM only
- Weaken SSM in a way which will affect GOWK but not Flying Obi
- Maintain a relationship between Soresu Style and Soresu Style Mastery which means Soresu Style Mastery will in every situation be as good as or better than Soresu Style

Essentially this errata would entail the division of Soresu Style Mastery into two parts, "Soresu Style" and "Mastery". The purpose being a 100% match in how Soresu Style and Soresu Style Mastery is executed whenever these abilities overlap. Meaning that SS and SSM from a rules perspective should work in an identical manner in case of non-adjacent attacks. Non-adjacent attacks would thus entail the "Soresu Style" part of Soresu Style Mastery.

This kind of parallellism between SS and SSM would seem attractive from a rules perspective, in that it would make these abilities easier to both explain and execute. To view the "Mastery" part of SSM as an add-on would also by necessity maintain the parity between SS and SSM, as SSM would essentially be SS+ and thus always more powerful than plain SS. This would in turn permit SSM to be proportionally weaker against adjacent attacks than non-adjacent attacks while still always be stronger than Soresu Style overall. Which seems desirable from a game balance and flavor perspective.

The "Mastery" part of Soresu Style Mastery would apply to attacks from adjacent enemies and represent the additional capabilities of a more competent Soresu practitioner. The fact that only a master of Soresu could defend against adjacent attacks would suggest adjacent attacks to be inherently more difficult to deal with. Which in turn would seem to make more limited results when dealing with adjacent attacks quite reasonable. Three changes to SSM have been proposed above which would all make the application of Soresu style less effective against adjacent attacks as compared to non-adjacent attacks:

- When hit by an adjacent attack, a successful (SS) Mastery save will negate 20 damage.

This change, as collectively proposed in an earlier thread, would weaken SSM while at the same time it would represent the idea of Soresu being less effective versus powerful attacks and so add some flavor. However this change might not alone be enough to make GOWK playable if only applied to adjacent attacks.

- A (SS) Mastery save versus an adjacent attack may be rerolled at a cost of 2 Force Points. (An even more restrictive option would be to increase the cost to 3+ FP or even to disallow these saves against adjacent attacks entirely, similar to what was suggested in a previous thread.)

A key precondition for the power of GOWK is how efficiently Force Points can negate damage when used to reroll Soresu saves in combination with Mettle and Master of the Force 2. One FP provides a 70% probability to negate damage. A second FP would equal a 99.7% probability. Another character without mettle would, if he could spend that many FP in the same round, have to pay 1 FP for a 50% probability to negate, 2 FP for a 75% probability to negate, 3 FP for a 87.5% probability to negate and 4 FP for a 99.375% probability to negate damage. By changing the cost for rerolling an SSM save to 2 FP it's brought in line with how efficiently other characters can spend FP. GOWK would in other words get what he pays for when rerolling SSM saves against adjacent attacks. Spending 2 FP on rerolling a SSM save against an adjacent attack would comparable to spending 2 FP on two Lightsaber Block/Lightsaber Defence rolls. Except that they would only negate max 20 damage. Slightly less efficient FP usage versus adjacent attacks than a character which would have spent an FP to reroll a parry then but still a very versatile defence. Probably something more would be necessary to bring GOWK into unbroken territory.

- (SS) Mastery saves may only be used on a turn when the character does not move. (SS) Mastery can't be used against attacks of opportunity.

This change would mean that all AOO's would go right through the SSM protection. And GOWK's 120 Hit Points alone is just not that great for a 55 points character. GOWK would pay a heavier price whenever braving an AOO and be vulnerable to lockdown. The exact value of this disadvantage may not be easy to quantify but together with the suggested changes above I'd say it should be enough to bring GOWK under control.

An advantage with these changes would be that they would have a much greater impact on GOWK than Flying Obi. Which is important as their purpose of course is to adjust the power level of GOWK first and foremost:

- Flying Obi has with Surprise move and Flight a much better chance than GOWK to avoid being based by powerful 30+ damage units which could punch through his SSM defence.

- Flying Obi has fewer FP to spend on SSM rerolls in the first place and so would not suffer as much if the cost of SSM rerolls against adjacent attacks was ncreased to 2 FP or even entirely disallowed.

- Flying Obi is immune to AOO's due to flight and so it won't matter to him that SSM can't be used on a turn when he moves.

A bonus would be that the inability to use SSM against attacks of opportunity would provide a great explanation as to exactly why Flying Obi went through the trouble of aquiring that fancy space suit of his.


So, why not instead opt for changing SSM into Parry + Evade instead of the changes above?

- One reason is game balance. If SSM was changed into Parry + Evade, GOWK would still be the ultimate melee beatstick and be able to dispatch far more costly characters than himself. Which I don't think is what he should be about. With the above changes it should be possible to defeat GOWK with other melee characters than Count Dooku of Serenno.

- Another reason is flavor. If Soresu Style Mastery really is the ultimate defense it does not really seem right that it should be possible to bypass it by something as simple as basing the practitioner.

Which is why I overall would prefer the previously suggested changes to the Parry + Evade fix.

How about errata Gowk to have Soresu Style(aka evade) and not mastery.

Well-said, Bill. I agree with this whole post (shortened to save space). IMHO, FLOBI's higher cost and lesser CE, along with the limited FP makes this version fine. In many ways, he's what GOWK should have been.

Thanks for posting this thread, Boba52! Good discussion.

Great post, but I think your solution is too complicated. We really want to keep any potential errata as simple as possible.

However, pulling out one aspect of your idea and modifying it:

Soresu Style Mastery requires 2 Force Points to reroll.

There's 1 simple change that could be made to SSM alone, which would hurt GOWK more than Flying Obi. As you said, Flying Obi with a fixed number of FPs and no MotF2 is going to reroll SSM saves much less anyway, so it doesn't affect Flying Obi as much.

If a SSM reroll costs 2 FPs, GOWK will run out of FPs *very* quickly. To benefit from MotF2, GOWK needs to spend at least 4 FPs on SSM rerolls... GOWK can't keep that up for long!

The problem with this of course is that we don't know what other SSM figures are coming, and how it will affect them. Still, it'd probably take a figure with SSM, MotF2, Mettle and FR 2+ to mess up this errata.

I really like this change because it doesn't play around with the printed abilities on GOWK, and is very simple. The next question is whether or not the CE is too powerful... but I think given that we already have a legal +3/+3 option, having a +4/+4 isn't so bad.

Well, insofar as the proposal basically introduces three changes to SSM and only one change obviously would have been better I agree that the ideal solution would be a less complicated one.



I agree that changing the cost of all SSM rerolls to 2 FP would put a significant dent into GOWK's capabilities. It would however also make SSM rerolls more costly than SS rerolls and so SSM would represent a diminished capability to defend against non-adjacent attacks as compared to regular SS. Which from a flavor perspective would be less than ideal and also might prove less than intuitive from a rules point of view. That problem could be solved if SS was given an errata which increased the cost of rerolling SS saves to 2 FP. I'd not be against such a solution but it would by including a fix to SS increase the scope of the solution beyond what has in earlier threads been suggested open to modifications.

Changing SSM so that it costs 2 FP to re-roll absolutely hurts FLObi more than it hurts GOWK. I don't know how you could ever think otherwise. A typical game lasts 6-8 rounds. That means that GOWK ends up with a total of 8-10 FPs throughout the game. Compare that to FLObi's 5 starting FPs. With that sort of change, FLObi would probably only get to re-roll SSM one time in the game (figure at least 1 FP is spent for Surprise move, and 1 spent to re-roll an attack or some other save).

I honestly don't see any way to change ONLY SSM so that GOWK can be unbanned, without making FLObi worthless.

The suggestion regarding AoOs is fine, and makes sense with FLObi having Flight to avoid AoOs anyways. But I think Bill's point above makes perfect sense here. If you look at the two figures side by side, without entertaining any ideas of changing SSM, it's ridiculously obvious that GOWK is WAY overpowered for his 55 point cost. Changing SSM is not necessarily the best answer, as the ability in and of itself makes sense "in universe". The only way to allow GOWK to be unbanned, and keep FLObi competitive as well, is to Errata GOWK himself, and leave SSM alone.

Granted, we are never going to get everyone to agree on this, just like not everyone agreed on the ban in the first place. And ultimately, the decision whether to errata GOWK's card, and HOW to errata that card, is in the hands of the WOTC design team. At this point, doesn't sound like they are too interested in doing anything about it. I think it's good to have these kinds of discussions, and see what the public opinion is, but honestly, there's not a whole lot of point in all of us arguing semantics back and forth about why we think OUR idea is the best one.

Or how about for the commander effect, non-unique Order 66 allies, since he mainly commanded clones. Then you don't have 30 defense Jedi running around. Not that your suggestion is bad at all, just to me seems clones would be more flavor and it's not like they don't need the help. Also, 65 points sounds about right without MotF 2.

I voted 'Only GOWK needs to be addressed', as I have never felt SSM by itself was the problem.