For what it's worth, I agree with this 100%. By not checking bloomilk for 24 hours or so I missed pretty much this whole thing when it blew up. When I first skimmed the whole mess I initially agreed in principle with jen'ari's point about 'no exceptions'... but

a) With more information I realized that the first couple rounds ending early changed the calendar, and since that impacted someone's schedule I think Caedus did make the the right call to extend Round 3 back to where it was going to end originally. And...

b) He's the T.O. Whatever he wants to do is fine. Even if I did disagree with a decision (which I don't in this case), it's his call - period.

+2, I was one of those "cheaters" that signed up past the deadline

I haven't been around because of life...but that doesn't matter, people still need to behave in a civil manner in my absence and not get bent over an effing game.

I won't nuke this thread because of it's intended purpose, but I will likely delete any posts that I assess are not germane if they don't contain tourney record data.

Lastly, Jen'ari, jeebus man, do you not have more important things to get riled up about?!!

I will follow up as needed here, and/or outside of this thread as appropriate, but am fresh out of FTG atm.

The original rules had this clause.


"If it turns out that all the matches have been completed their match before the week’s time is up, then we’ll start the next round a little earlier. "

What's truly pathetic are people, especially ones not in the tournament, still feeling a need to call the T.O a rule breaker or cheat for something that never happened. A rule was never violated, Round 3 ended up being Re-Paired with no one receiving additional time.

There was a chance Darth_Frenchy and Thereisnotry could have gotten their game in on time . . . but we'll never know now and the whole thing is a dead issue.

I just know that allowing additional time has always been within the purview of T.O. /Judges in SWM events.
I've seen a judge grant additional time to one table and denying it to another. I've seen a judge declare a strict "200 or 2," policy before the tournament, but then grant a 3 to a player with 199 points and a slow opponent retreating his pieces.

Basically, the T.O /Head Judge can do whatever the freak they want if they feel it's warranted. We trust that they are acting in good faith and doing what they feel is best. Players have a right to disagree with a ruling, but disrupting the enjoyment of a tournament with unsportsmanlike behavior is just unacceptable.

I don't know that bastilla is "still the hottest thing on the market", as much as she is an almost auto include in the OR faction. I do feel that she is seeing a lot more table time lately however due in large part to some great new options for OR players like Ven Zallow, Vodo, and the wookie commander that have been introduced in the last couple of sets. I just think people are enjoying playing with those new options and it's hard not to take her in any OR squad because she is so good.

I think people tend to play OR in tournaments they think will have a melee meta.

+1

It's nearly impossible to make a good OR piece without it being a new toy for Bastila outside of there being rival or high motivation to not play her through negative consequences (prideful, losing CEs, not being able to use ABM, etc). We can only make so many pieces with those negative effects to encourage or prohibit a piece to be used with Bastila.

I know in Vsets 10 and 14 we specifically attempted to make pieces that played much better with the Arkanian Jedi General (the only other realistic reason to not play Bastila at the time). Drop Pilots, Veteran Troopers, Dowutin Soldiers, Antarian Ranger Tactical Soldiers and Jace Malcom are a few examples.

(I am singling out those sets because they were sets so I worked on, and I am intimately familiar with motivations and concerns to OR in those sets. I do know other recent sets have also been very conscious of Bastila at all times, but designers on those sets would be better to go into details there)

We also have attempted to start a new "cornerstone" in the faction to promote OR sans Bastila in the covenant subfaction with Q'Anilia. As always - having a single piece launch a new subfaction to tier one is dangerous and almost always a mistake (IE Director Krennic - ooops! Sorry again!) So hopefully new sets will focus on adding Covenant Uniques to steadily bring Covenant Sans Bastila up to speed.

The tricky part is that people won't play without her in OR (outside a fun squads) until squads can be made that are equal to or better without her than squads with her. Since Bastila is easily one of the best pieces in the game, we actually don't want anything that is objectively better than her. So the goal is to make pieces that help squads to be equal to her. A razors edge to balance on. No easy task.

If you don't want me to respond don't direct your comments to me. Ace Ace summed it, I believe.
But in response.


I was not the initial aggressor.

Caedus was.
You and I were discussing if it was ok to Grant extra time.
I called for Caedus to follow the rules that he set. I called for him to think about the unfair treatment that would happen. I said that it would be dishonest.

So if you all were looking for discussion. That is what I was doing.

When he addressed me he did so aggressively and without care.
Maybe you feel I don't deserve a thoughtful response or to be treated with respect for past "deeds". Whatever.
I would like for you to answer the question:
Up to that point (before caedus response) what did I do that was disrespectful?

When Caedus addressed me he said

"YOU MAY TAKE YOU BALL AND GO HOME JUST LIKE YOU DID THE LAST TIME. Either way is fine with me."


So here he is, the event organizer, not giving a flip about my thoughts and, apparently, the thoughts of some others (flying arrow (initially, it changed due to timeline, but their was never a hard set timeline), general grievous, deaths baine, 2 people outside the tournament).

And mocking me, personally.


How next post, before I posted anything stated

"Now either QUIT or keep playing, but please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, QUIT EFFING BITCHING!!"


Just for the record, caps are understood to be raised voice.


Explain to me how someone should respond to someone who does not care, mocks, and insults you.

Well when I did those things to Caedus, he made a threat.....


Umm... I called him a liar, cheater, and that he was a pathetic event coordinator.

But make no mistake, he started all the actual disrespect.

Unless he feels that my interpreting of the rules and discussing it was disrespectful. Which would be lunacy because that would mean that no one could address anything.

About this the community is over you..

What are you going to do about it Tim?
The only power you have is to ignore. But you, personally, love it too much to ignore. Ace Ace has it figured out. No one cares. I care. I just don't have any power to do anything about any of it. Tried the play testing thing, was cordial for a long time. Then some crap was pushed through that was just over the top. I couldn't handle it. The game is just never going to be where it could be. That is why anyone who has ever thought like I do is gone. Literally all of them.

I wonder why that is the case?

It's not like the community has ever actually cared about anything someone in my line of thought has thought. So nothing has changed except maybe you guys can ignore me. That's the only change that can happen.

The initial point to this post is that I was not the aggressive person first. This time round. You guys just jumped the gun on this one

Well put. The trick is that a major piece in the subfaction (A cornerstone piece) has to have anti-motivation for (Arkanian Jedi General, Master Q'Anilia etc) or else they'll just play those pieces WITH Bastila. Then the supporting pieces have to gain such an advantage from the cornerstone piece that without that cornerstone piece they're not worth playing (even with Bastila). Or at least there are better options for Bastila.

You can't just make a good piece in OR (Ven Zallow, Vodo, Wookie Commander, etc) that has no negative consequences for playing with Bastila, and have people not play them with Bastila.

It gets exponentially harder and harder to design all the time.



And you're right this is not a design thread, lol (my bad!)

I have really enjoyed Venku Skirata. Not overpowered or broken, but better than first glance. I haven't even got to use his commander effect and still he's been integral to my wins. Flight, mobile attack, force awareness and knight speed (along with Kelborn's Resol'nare) give him incredible movement. Haven't used smoke screen yet, but obviously it could come in handy. Decently high hp (110) and LS deflect give him reasonably good survivability, and add his aforementioned movement and he's a tough nugget to kill. Twin attack, lightsaber +10 and protective +10 give him a pretty decent damage output (60 damage to adjacent enemies and injured unique Mandalorian ally is within six.) you do have to use good positioning and strategy to consistently get those 60 damage strikes.

I haven't got to use his CE yet (everyone is playing such low activations!) but regardless it feels like a blasteded-if-you-do blasteded-if-you-don't for your opponent. Either you out activate and can set up nasty strikes with all of the movement, or you don't outactive, possibly give an extra 70 damage to an adjacent enemy at the end of any enemy's turn after all of your squad is activated.

This is why I paired Venku with Maul and Pre Vizla - because they have twin attack (and Pre has dark saber!). Once I have the three of those along with Kelborn, it only made sense to round out the squad with deathwatch.

The squad definitely has potential, as does Venku in general. At this point I probably call my squad an 8, and Venku and 8 as well. I don't think the squad is optimized, but I will definitely be playing around with Venku in squads.