|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/28/2009
Posts: 414
|
countrydude82487 wrote:I am in favor of either one, however i think it should wait until January. Most major rules updates happen in January, not only because it is more convenient, but also because then the regional season is played that way, and it doesn't cause a major change for gen con. This isn't entirely true btw. Wizards changed SSM prior to a Gencon, I believe I changed it back prior to one as well. I've, along with Wizards, also updated the map list prior to a Gencon as well. So the precedent really swings both ways, with the July update probably favoring the dynamic changes from problems arising in regional play.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
The Celestial Warrior wrote:billiv15 wrote:Brad is the final authority on making rule change decisions. He's saying he's made one. But he's also willing to change his mind if the numbers say otherwise or something to that affect.
And we as the community charged him with that responsibility when WotC stopped supporting the game. He's been making these final decisions with community input for 4 years now. Right. This. Actually, Trevor, I'll post the entire flow chart when I post or in lieu of posting the update, just so the community can see where I started and where I ended up on this. Cool... I like flow charts...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/28/2009
Posts: 414
|
atmsalad wrote:The Celestial Warrior wrote:billiv15 wrote:Brad is the final authority on making rule change decisions. He's saying he's made one. But he's also willing to change his mind if the numbers say otherwise or something to that affect.
And we as the community charged him with that responsibility when WotC stopped supporting the game. He's been making these final decisions with community input for 4 years now. Right. This. Actually, Trevor, I'll post the entire flow chart when I post or in lieu of posting the update, just so the community can see where I started and where I ended up on this. Cool... I like flow charts... Then you'll like this one, because your name is actually at the top :D
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
countrydude82487 wrote:I am in favor of either one, however i think it should wait until January. Most major rules updates happen in January, not only because it is more convenient, but also because then the regional season is played that way, and it doesn't cause a major change for gen con. I also voted to wait until January, but I'm fine with both changes then. It's no secret that I'll most likely play Daala at GenCon. (Who knows - I might be the only one.) Changing these rules hurts Daala, and I understand that's partly the point - but who knows just how much? If the regional season were played with the rule changes, we would all have a much better idea how much. If it's a lot, maybe I wouldn't want to play her after all. (The 10-point gambit is actually the one that hurts. Delaying 3-2-1 scoring is just based on the idea that regionals/GenCon should be one season with the same rules.)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
For those questioning the timing, both of these rule changes have been a long time coming and are also at least in part reacting to problems identified at regionals.
They aren't targeting a specific squad, as these suggestions were both things that have made for years by the community.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/12/2010
Posts: 564
|
Voted for the 10pt gambit, but I'm not sold on 3-2-1. I just don't believe in awarding points to someone for losing. Even if they do reach 100pts. I don't like how it can be abused either when friends get paired in tournaments.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
The Celestial Warrior wrote:atmsalad wrote:The Celestial Warrior wrote:billiv15 wrote:Brad is the final authority on making rule change decisions. He's saying he's made one. But he's also willing to change his mind if the numbers say otherwise or something to that affect.
And we as the community charged him with that responsibility when WotC stopped supporting the game. He's been making these final decisions with community input for 4 years now. Right. This. Actually, Trevor, I'll post the entire flow chart when I post or in lieu of posting the update, just so the community can see where I started and where I ended up on this. Cool... I like flow charts... Then you'll like this one, because your name is actually at the top :D Well that's pretty sweet 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/28/2009
Posts: 414
|
atmsalad wrote:The Celestial Warrior wrote:atmsalad wrote:The Celestial Warrior wrote:billiv15 wrote:Brad is the final authority on making rule change decisions. He's saying he's made one. But he's also willing to change his mind if the numbers say otherwise or something to that affect.
And we as the community charged him with that responsibility when WotC stopped supporting the game. He's been making these final decisions with community input for 4 years now. Right. This. Actually, Trevor, I'll post the entire flow chart when I post or in lieu of posting the update, just so the community can see where I started and where I ended up on this. Cool... I like flow charts... Then you'll like this one, because your name is actually at the top :D Well that's pretty sweet Yup, it was your gambit thread followed by your poll that got me looking at making the 10 point change in January, then it snowballed.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
FlyingArrow wrote:countrydude82487 wrote:I am in favor of either one, however i think it should wait until January. Most major rules updates happen in January, not only because it is more convenient, but also because then the regional season is played that way, and it doesn't cause a major change for gen con. I also voted to wait until January, but I'm fine with both changes then. It's no secret that I'll most likely play Daala at GenCon. (Who knows - I might be the only one.) Changing these rules hurts Daala, and I understand that's partly the point - but who knows just how much? If the regional season were played with the rule changes, we would all have a much better idea how much. If it's a lot, maybe I wouldn't want to play her after all. (The 10-point gambit is actually the one that hurts. Delaying 3-2-1 scoring is just based on the idea that regionals/GenCon should be one season with the same rules.) Yes you will have to solve the problem of getting gambit. I would suggest a scout trooper, or even a klat ;). 3-2-1 scoring is actually better for daala, for the average squad will have a hard time getting a full win even with 10 point gambit against you. Also when you bring in ozzel and want him to die you have an advantage with him in gambit. Your opponent will have to descide to let you get gambit or activate 2 at a time.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
theultrastar wrote:Voted for the 10pt gambit, but I'm not sold on 3-2-1. I just don't believe in awarding points to someone for losing. Even if they do reach 100pts. I don't like how it can be abused either when friends get paired in tournaments. If we have a judge then we could easily say that 1 point losses can only be approved by a judge. The same as when you petition for a full victory without reaching 200. Obviously that isn't up to me though.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/28/2009
Posts: 414
|
atmsalad wrote:theultrastar wrote:Voted for the 10pt gambit, but I'm not sold on 3-2-1. I just don't believe in awarding points to someone for losing. Even if they do reach 100pts. I don't like how it can be abused either when friends get paired in tournaments. If we have a judge then we could easily say that 1 point losses can only be approved by a judge. The same as when you petition for a full victory without reaching 200. Obviously that isn't up to me though. Full victory has always meant to be 200 points. Anything less is 2 points. 1 points would also very clearly be 100 points. At least assuming 200 point games, otherwise it's half the build total.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
billiv15 wrote:For those questioning the timing, both of these rule changes have been a long time coming and are also at least in part reacting to problems identified at regionals.
They aren't targeting a specific squad, as these suggestions were both things that have made for years by the community. What are the problems identified at regionals that you are referring to?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
The Celestial Warrior wrote:atmsalad wrote:theultrastar wrote:Voted for the 10pt gambit, but I'm not sold on 3-2-1. I just don't believe in awarding points to someone for losing. Even if they do reach 100pts. I don't like how it can be abused either when friends get paired in tournaments. If we have a judge then we could easily say that 1 point losses can only be approved by a judge. The same as when you petition for a full victory without reaching 200. Obviously that isn't up to me though. Full victory has always meant to be 200 points. Anything less is 2 points. 1 points would also very clearly be 100 points. At least assuming 200 point games, otherwise it's half the build total. Thanks for addressing that. It shouldn't be that hard for people to be honorable. I wouldn't feel good about giving or accepting(cheating) when 100 wasn't reached. I don't know anyone that plays who would.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/8/2008
Posts: 110
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/12/2010
Posts: 261
Voted for the 10pt gambit, but I'm not sold on 3-2-1. I just don't believe in awarding points to someone for losing. Even if they do reach 100pts. I don't like how it can be abused either when friends get paired in tournaments.
If you don't reach 200 pts it's not a win it's a tie so I have no problem awarding someone who was behind at time but that did not lose a point.
I really like 10pt gambit because I don't even think about it when it is 5pts.
Now as for the change before gencon I am fine either way but just feel like we need to know by Friday because it might effect squads people will play it will not affect my squad but if people are as busy as I am they might have to pull minis now.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
FlyingArrow wrote:billiv15 wrote:For those questioning the timing, both of these rule changes have been a long time coming and are also at least in part reacting to problems identified at regionals.
They aren't targeting a specific squad, as these suggestions were both things that have made for years by the community. What are the problems identified at regionals that you are referring to? presumably one of them was my sem-finals game in PA, where except for miscounting, I would have won based on non-engagement and the fact that gambit is only 5 pts.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,410
Location: Chokio, MN
|
I voted for the 10pt gamibit. Not sure how the 10pt gambit will work in the 3-2-1 systems thogu yet, since NZ doesn't use both there. I'd be inclined to wait on the 3-2-1 system until i see what effects both would have with each other. But 10pt gambit is a must!
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
urbanjedi wrote:FlyingArrow wrote:What are the problems identified at regionals that you are referring to?
presumably one of them was my sem-finals game in PA, where except for miscounting, I would have won based on non-engagement and the fact that gambit is only 5 pts. A simpler fix to that problem is to add gaining gambit to the list of things that extends the game. That way, if you abandon the gambit zone permanently the opponent will win. That is a change that is needed anyway. Increasing gambit to 10 just means you need a 51 point lead instead of a 26 point lead before disengaging.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 1,233
|
The Celestial Warrior wrote:countrydude82487 wrote:I am in favor of either one, however i think it should wait until January. Most major rules updates happen in January, not only because it is more convenient, but also because then the regional season is played that way, and it doesn't cause a major change for gen con. This isn't entirely true btw. Wizards changed SSM prior to a Gencon, I believe I changed it back prior to one as well. I've, along with Wizards, also updated the map list prior to a Gencon as well. So the precedent really swings both ways, with the July update probably favoring the dynamic changes from problems arising in regional play. Fair enough. I forgot about the SSM changes happening that way.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,784
Location: Canada
|
FlyingArrow wrote:urbanjedi wrote:FlyingArrow wrote:What are the problems identified at regionals that you are referring to?
presumably one of them was my sem-finals game in PA, where except for miscounting, I would have won based on non-engagement and the fact that gambit is only 5 pts. A simpler fix to that problem is to add gaining gambit to the list of things that extends the game. That way, if you abandon the gambit zone permanently the opponent will win. That is a change that is needed anyway. Increasing gambit to 10 just means you need a 51 point lead instead of a 26 point lead before disengaging. Actually, that is something I think needs to change too.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
FlyingArrow wrote:urbanjedi wrote:FlyingArrow wrote:What are the problems identified at regionals that you are referring to?
presumably one of them was my sem-finals game in PA, where except for miscounting, I would have won based on non-engagement and the fact that gambit is only 5 pts. A simpler fix to that problem is to add gaining gambit to the list of things that extends the game. That way, if you abandon the gambit zone permanently the opponent will win. That is a change that is needed anyway. Increasing gambit to 10 just means you need a 51 point lead instead of a 26 point lead before disengaging. Killing 26 is a lot easier than 51. Killing 26 is as simple as sniping lobot. The reason the 5 round rule is necessary is because of another kind of abuse you aren't thinking of at the moment. Let's say I'm in a close scored game, but its clear if played out I'll lose, and if I manage to win, I'm certainly not getting a full win because I've got tech and commanders left, and you have your attackers. If I'm losing by 5 rounds of gambit or less and I can lock you out of gambit (rare, but can happen) then I can win via lockout, but I'm not likely to get to 200 that way. If you take away the 5 round rule, I can get a 200 pt full win out of this. And just as bad is same scenario by I'm winning by 1 point and I can lock my figures in gambit and safe from you. Not only am I ensuring a lock out win, but I'm also going to be able to get to 200 when there's no way I would have otherwise. You can do the reverse too. Get to gambit early on, kill off the door control, lock it up for as many rounds as it takes for you to get to 180-190ish, open a door, kill a piece to finish it, and win a full win, on mostly gambit points. 5 round limits prevent those shenanigans. Not completely mind you, but there has to be a balance. We used to have a 10 round limit and eventually reduced it to 5 because 10 wasn't effective with most games going 6-9 rounds in total. 5 is enough that if you won't engage you will lose. 10 or infinite is not.
|
|
|
Guest |