billiv15 wrote:
Interesting. I've posted results over and over again to the contrary, but obviously it's only "theory". I don't disagree that it can be an advantage and can be used quite well by levels of play below Championship caliber, which makes it seem more than it is. But in terms of the championship meta, to which I specifically said I was responding, I disagree with you both.
Do I need to post specific examples? Like how Ben took 3rd at the Racine regional with Sith in 150 and nearly beat Deri's activation control? Or perhaps where Lou and I each went 3-1 at Gencon in 200 with Qui-Gon JT (I lost to him in a first round mirror and then beat 3 straight different act control squads). I guess Matt should never have run his Seps in 200 because he dared not to use San Hill, but as I remember, he went 3-1 in the Team tournament with it, losing not to act control, but to Wedge when he made a stupid set up error against "gasp" Republic.
My activation control squad is probably not a great example, but it did win and that was after missing 2-3 kill shots on malak needing 7's which would've made the game a rout.
Quote:
In 100, I ran 4 pieces, and won the thing, and I played two games against Dodonna. Hell, the winning 200pt squad was an Uggernaught squad with Tarkin so he could go first with more than one act.
100 points is less about activations and more about power but I ran the same squad you ran and Tim beat me pretty much due to activation control and triple override (keep doors locked, out activate, unlock, kill, lock). I'm not great at 100 points and i had a chance to make it back (damn those back2back 1's) but i was behind the whole game. The uggernaught squad used a mechanic that won't work anymore. The uggernaughts smoked his opponents entire squad in the first round because of Hoth. Tim replayed Ruben on a different map and it wasn't close. With the restrictive maps his strategy is much harder to work now.
Quote:
In the Team event, I ran Ozzel. But you know what, even being out activated (by 2), and losing map (Teth), I still managed to smoke a Slow Cannon squad with Cade and Scourge. And I debated Ozzel or not, and in the end ran him because of the chance at "reserves". In all 4 games, I tried or managed to get Ozzel killed by mid game (once got him disrupted for a couple of rounds). I wished I hadn't included him at all.
It served you well enough to win, i don't see why you would take back your successful build. Its hardly and argument against activation control
Quote:
I understand it can help in some situations, and some of you see the price of Dodonna and think, well for that price, he's an auto include. But that isn't necessarily true in top level play. The advantages it gives depends entirely on the meta, and your own play skill.
No not nessicarily true always, but i would need a really good reason not to run him.
Quote:
Let me back up to a comparable example. In 2008 Gencon, I ran Speedy Cannon without Dodonna and won it. The PAX champ dropped the BG for Dodonna and won PAX. Do you really think I needed Dodonna??? Do you think I didn't play against activation control nearly every match? How could I possibly win without it? There are other strategies available in the game that can give you the same level of advantages as activation control. That is the central point of contention in my reading, you two are claiming it is superior to all other, or at least that it's significant enough to trump other options.
Your Gen Con 2008 championship squad was well built but it used map selection to hinder opponents activation control as much as its own squad construction. Surely you understand that these deep strike counters are much harder to realise with the loss of the starship, hoth and others.
Quote:
That just isn't so, otherwise I would never win a game with Sith, OR, Vong, Republic. Or I would never win when I run Rebels without Dodonna, or Seps without San, or Imperials without Ozzel. Surprisingly, I win a lot of games without those.
Republic have counters, I included them as top meta because of the phenomenal movement breaking and swarm control. The others i don't really see them competing too often. Seps without San run Lancers (i believe that is the sans-San Hill squad Matt runs). It has a very hard counter to activation control - a lawnmower.
Quote:
I do not consider any of them auto-includes the way I consider door control. I base their use on the given meta, and on the squad I am designing itself. Some squads function better with activation control, and some need/want other things instead. I ran a Rebel squad just the other day without Dodonna against Dean's San Hill and did absolutely fine with it.
Well thats just good squad building. I don't mean to be so restictive but there are so many times where I play without activation control and I realise that if i had been able to control the first engagement the result would have been so much more smooth. Thats the cusion it gives you.
Quote:
Further, the gambit advantages, and the map list have greatly favored act control up to this point (even despite the wins I have mentioned in this thread). It isn't nearly so important when you have a map where you can advance to the half way point safely. Once the action begins, activation control generally becomes a waste of points. My DT Sith squad had little trouble against a Dodonna/Wedge NR standard team the other day on Vassal. The map was ravaged base.
your point about activation control once engagement commences is well taken, it does become superfluous after the intitial strike unless there is a retreat and regroup from both sides where it becomes useful again. However, that first engagement is often game breaking which is where the power lies. All too often the choice when playing agains activation control becomes "well he is my sacrifice so i can hopefully get it back if these odds go in my favour" rather than the option for activaiton control which is "i'll smoke whatever attacks, and if he doen't attack i'll ping his fodder end of round"
Quote:
I can't tell you how many times I've flat out not bothered to kill Dodonna once the battle started, because it wasn't worth the points to bother. Now, I understand, much of what I say is not necessarily true at other levels of play, but for me, activation control is not as strong as has been suggested.
Yeah once the battle starts there are better options for more points but by that time, if played well the activation control has done its job and the opponent is playing catch up.
Anyway, i hope your right Bill because its my sorest point with this game. I'm kind of out of practice since Gen Con because of work and other factors but i havn't seen a whole lot change and controlling that first engagement is very important and hard to do without activation control when you face it.
Admitedly, the speed of pieces has increased the last few sets (mainly in factions that can already compete) so perhaps i'm just out of touch.