but in all seriousness, assume that all you have left of your ghetto squad is an override character (R7 anyone?) and a couple of brutes. what option do you have left? fighting would be *suicide*, so really that's your only "logical" option...

IMO, i say that you should "fight like a man" even if you have override and your opp. doesnt have DC, but if the only logical move you have left is to lock yourself into a room, by all means i think you should do it. (note: the following scenario is very "cheesy"). for ex, imagine in Ep. IV where han, leia, chewy, and luke get stuck in the trash compactor. now, if R2 decided to not use Override b/c it was "unfair" to the other team (as said before, this is a really cheesy sceanrio) then han, leia, chewy, and luke would die.

In short, if camping is the ONLY [logical] option, and not the most OPPORTUNE option, then i say camping is OK.

The Visualization alone makes me LMAO

This is like someone complaining because their opponent castled in chess. "OMG that's so cheap, your king is like way far away now! How will I ever reach him?!"

If you want to play all your games on a featureless plain so you don't have to think about LOS or cover or worry about opening doors, fine. But don't expect anyone else to prefer that. Even without override, doors are a huge part of the game. Grow a pair and learn how to deal with them instead of complaining that your opponent beat you with tactics instead of dice rolls.

To return to the original topic, of course camping in gambit is OK. If your opponent refuses to engage you, the only way to make them come after you is to set up shop in the middle and earn some points. At the same time, every piece you leave camped out grabbing gambit is one piece you don't have available to contribute to your offense. Whether the tradeoff is worth it depends on what the score is, what kind of squads are on the table, and many other things. The idea that SCORING POINTS is "cheap" should strike everyone as being patently ludicrous. It isn't OK to win the game anymore?

Now, I agree that in a draft you can get into problems where one person has override and the other cannot answer it. But the maps that we use make it pretty much impossible to get locked in by one override piece. If you put your squad in a room with only one exit knowing that your opponent has override and you don't, you deserve to lose (and probably will remember and never lose that way again for the rest of your life). It happened to me a month or two after I started playing. Lost the game first turn due to lockout. But it only happened because I screwed up and did not one but several stupid things. If you are really worried about override, choose Rancor Pit; problem solved.

Yet true.

When a person is playing to win, they will use all tactics at their disposal. "Cheap" does not matter, the player is simply seeing an advantageous opportunity and using it.

I highly recommend reading the book Playing to Win (free online version found here). It showcases how players evolve from scrubs to true competitive players and the steps they must take to get there.

Repeating a single word does not account for an discussion.

While using competive tactics in a causal enviroment is a bit brutral, but on a competive level, such as a tourney, when there are things at stake. It's perfectly fine, if the rules do not state you can't do it, then you can use any method possible. If I do not have anything to gain from a direct assault, I will lock the oppoment out to buy me time.

If they don't have any, it's simply tough. I will keep it locked until I can make an advanterous attack, I will only do so if I have something to gain from it, such as healing up or moving to a location that is easier to attack into/more cover. I have no problem doing that as long as I have a clearly identified objective, unless things are that bad that there is no point stalling anyways.

I don't have much problem with Jedi being able to cut though doors though, only that it should be a full turn to do it, as it would take considerable game time to hack open a door. That way, the penalty would be to be left open to being shot at.

You're gonna have to help me out here. Harsh how?

There are three aspects to playing this game.

The first is strategic: you build your squad. You choose what to emphasize and what you can do without. You visualize a path to victory that this squad will travel to win games. You figure out ahead of time what you will do against the squads you know you'll probably face. You choose a map that helps you achieve those goals or maybe even thwart your opponent (an obvious example being Deri using trains in the Gencon finals last year).

The second is tactical. You put your squad on a map. It might not be your map; it might be a map that really makes your life difficult. Your opponent also has a squad. It might be a squad you match up against poorly. It might be something you've never even seen before. Now you have to take that plan you had in your head and fit it to the circumstances on the table. You have to respond to your opponent and exploit their mistakes. You do that remembering, at all times, von Moltke's edict that no plan survives past initial contact with the enemy.

Finally you have luck. You put your pieces next to your opponent's and roll dice. It is possible that you perform brilliantly at the first two elements and lose because this one abandons you. It is possible that your own mistakes or poor choices become passable because you were lucky enough. It is possible to lose the game because your opponent makes 15 Bombad Gungan saves.

Why do you want to throw out the middle part? What you are suggesting is that we should minimize a third of the game, which happens to be the third that takes the most time, thought, and practice, that changes the most game to game, and that is the most fun to figure out. This is not about playful versus ruthless or competitive versus "for fun." It's about playing the whole game as it was meant to be, or warping it.

It takes a slightly bigger person to get up at the end of a game and say, "I lost because my opponent outplayed me." It is much easier and less difficult on yourself to say "Well he made all his evade rolls, so no wonder I lost," or "That was an awful matchup, there was no way I could have won that." It requires taking ownership of your game instead of blaming external factors.

If this strikes you as really harsh, maybe you aren't being hard enough on yourself.

I find this discussion hilarious in light of the recent debate in another thread on which aspect of SWMs is the most abusive or problematic. Almost everyone believes it to be GMA, yet no one seems concerned that one player might pull a GMAer, and another would not have it.

In general, I agree that override is abusable in sealed play. But the real question is this. For the most part, it requires a rare/VR to do it, which means the guy who pulls it doesn't likely have access to another theoretically better piece. So his/her only advantage is door control, for the price of playing a man down. I'm not sure it's as big of an advantage as it seems. Further, it takes a pretty good player to know how to properly abuse override. So I'm really not convinced it makes as much of an issue as you might think.

The biggest issue however, has nothing to do with the rules, but to do with player attitudes and ideas about the importance of winning in this particular event. As I understand it, this is a league without any prize, that is meant to give players on bloo something fun to do, it is not meant to be a competitive tournament. There really is no reason to use lockout (as opposed to using override for tactical purposes) in an event like this. It's often a mistake to house rule one potentially abusive option in a "fun" event because that has the counter point is that you have effectively told the players that anything else (no matter how "cheap") is perfectly legal.

It's generally better to just make players aware of the type of play expected rather than trying to worry about every potentially abusive combination of figures - especially since I can name many combos and so on that are at the very least, equally powerful as pulling an override piece in sealed. How about this one in our Gamers tournament for example, 2 Vong Prae Wars, Han in Stormtrooper, Ithorian commander, another +4 atk commander, and Kol Skywalker - and that's only about 1/2 his squad, in a format without a lot of movement breakers, without a lot of init control, and without a lot of disruptive.

So personally, I would use this discussion to remind players of the purpose of the league, and that this isn't a win at all costs tournament for prizes, but it is competitive and they should play their bests, just keeping the ultimate goal of fun for all players in mind when they do. That will go a lot further than making a house rule.

condescending

Trolling


I love it, someone tries to have a legitimate discussion on a real (or potencial) issue and some anonymous new poster on bloomilk ruins it. Why do you think this is an appropriate way to act? Please stop trying to ruin the site for others, I don't care what you reason of self justification is, it's really not cool, not funny, and quite rude and childish. Please find another way to have fun on the internet.

Erictedders, I would suggest you ADD to the discussion, as your one word replies do nothing except proke users.