Does vassel and skype count



yes it is a much better phrase

Ok. So trying to figure out what changes will make GOWK work is one thing, but actually doing something about it is another. We really don't have many options since our only real way to influence (and I question how much influence we have) the game is through making suggestions to WOTC, and all any changes that we think will work may really only function to allow us to see if something does change the game enough to allow He Who Has Now Been Banned back. And it is very doubtful that Rob will make another Errata to GOWK.

But, I think there may be another option, and I'm going to go into a bit of a long post about it too, so be aware. We can't change the Errata or the Basic Rules of the game, but we (meaning those who have influence on the floor rules) can update the Floor Rules of DCI to make said changes.

Now hear me out a second, I'm going to go into how it could work and at least some of the pros and cons of doing so. The other thing I'm not really sure about, is if a Floor Rules change to him was already proposed and shot down by WOTC.

We've already seen that the Floor rules can make changes to the rules of the game on a basic level, in fact there was a rather lengthy discussion about it over on the wizards forums not too long ago. We've already got the Initiative rules and Gambit. So it's not impossible for that to happen. We've also seen a fan created format (thank you Boris) officially entered into DCI, so it's not impossible for something the players come up with to enter the DCI rules. Finally we've also seen changes and modifications to existing special abilities put into play through the Floor Rules, in both Limited (Rigid) and DD (Reinforcements and Reserves), so again, not impossible for it to happen again. The question then (and to be honest I don't really know the answer to this) is what sort of change would be acceptable to be put into the Floor Rules. I'd suggest that any suggestion not actually change any existing rule or ability (so no 11 saves become 6), but just put a greater restriction on them, and that we not do anything that has been explicitly stated as being done on purpose or already dealt with in the errata (whether we like it or not). I think the less we try to suggest or change, the easier the sell. And hopefully doing so will be worth the time and effort.

Now onto the pros and cons.

On the pro side, we get GOWK 'fixed' or at least 'dealable'. We then get GOWK back in DCI format, on at least a trial basis. We also have a new way of dealing with figures that are truly broken without having to Ban any further figures. We also have a way of dealing with rules issues that only need to involve Tournaments rather than the entire game (through the errata and rule books). It may also be a faster (or at least more reliable time wise)and more efficient way of providing change and updates. Having GOWK back and fixed will help salve a bit of the contention between the pro-banners and anti-banners. Having him back (depending how he's changed) could allow for a bit of a meta shift (and not break) and give new life to certain pieces. Allowing DCI changes may also be a way to testbed actual Rule Book changes, I have a feeling the initiative change may already be one of these. It also allows the players to have some influence on the game. Any changes would also have to be approved by WOTC, which provides some insulation against player bias.

On the con side, GOWK could end up either still being broken, or be nerfed to not being worth playing. If this is the case, and the change is made it could be at least six months before he's removed or the changes are removed. It also doesn't take into account any changes that might happen with new sets, a change at one point could end up with a broken piece in the next set. Any changes could also spark a lot of debate and cause a new fractioning of the fan base between those for and against the change. And allowing the players to have a more direct influence on how the game is played could lead to a select few people having an influence over the game, and if those people don't have the best interests of the game and players in mind (I'm not taking a shot at anyone, if Dean were to vacate his position who knows who could take it), or aren't skilled enough to do make the changes properly.

To be honest, I'm not sure if such a thing is truly probable. Such a suggestion has already been made and rejected, which would mean it really isn't possible anyway.
The trick to it may be to make any changes balanced and well play tested, and to make sure that the effort is worth the reward.

So, let's discuss it and see what we can come up with, but let's try to keep it civil as well.

The 2 best solutions i have seen are
1) Take SSM off and add Lightsaber Defense

or

2) Change SSM to "When hit by an attack, this character takes no damage unless the attacker makes a save of 11"

More that it isn't the DCI's responsibility to design minis or cards.

BTW, I think these numbers are wrong.

Straight up vs. 11
1-10 fails, 11-20 saves = 50%
+4 bonus (vs. 7)
1-6 fails, 7-20 saves = 30%
+8 bonus (vs. 3)
1-2 fails, 3-20 saves = 10%

Compounds to...
50%, 15%, 1.5%

Without mettle stacking...
50%, 15%, 4.5%

So GOWK's save is less likely to fail than you suggest, by a small amount.

Personally, I think the suggestion early in the thread, of WOTC producing a new card for GOWK, and making it available a la Elite AT-AT Driver is the best suggestion I've seen yet. That doesn't invalidate the piece that people bought in their starter set, and it's easy to get the replacement card. Then people playing casual games can utilize either one they want. Should also be relatively easy to keep track of in DCI games, just by the judge or opponents verifying that a player with GOWK is using the correct card.

I really don't think a 'direct counter' will ever work. We already have one direct counter, Dooku of Serenno, and he didn't work. The problem with 'direct counters' is that they are always weak in some other way, or inferior to other pieces in such way that there is no incentive to play the 'counter'. Look at Han Rogue for instance. He was designed as a counter to the Master Tactician ability. But both Han Rebel Hero and Han Scoundrel saw MUCH more play when Rogue came out, such that in most cases, many top players would continue to build squads with Thrawn and not worry about Rogue's impact. Nym is similar with his Disruptive. Right now, many factions only have access to Disruptive because of Nym, so in many cases, nobody worries about Disruptive too much, because Kyle Katarn is the only piece that can cause any problems in that realm, AND be competitive in other ways. Nym is so horrible, that I never worry about Disruptive showing up in anything besides Rebel or NR squads.

Direct counters are extremely tricky to design correctly as well, as you have to counter the problematic ability/piece, without affecting a slew of other things. One of the suggestions earlier in the thread was for an ability that would change an opponent's Save 11's to Save 16's. This is great for the most part, but think about what it does to so many other pieces, which are fairly balanced, and already don't see much play (older Republic Jedi for instance). If you take a slightly different approach, you could design a new piece/ability that counters the SSM ability specifically, but then that piece is mostly worthless for other uses, or you end up forced to build that piece into every squad for the small chance you'll see GOWK.

So, with all that in mind, the only thing that comes to mind that would actually work as a 'counter' to GOWK, would be to introduce a piece that is 20 points or less, and has some special ability that nerfs ONLY Soresu Style Mastery. This way, someone playing Lobot could bring in said piece as Reinforcements in games where necessary (or through Reserves with other pieces if they get lucky enough to roll that 11). However, this basically ends up having the exact same effect as the ban anyways. If there is always the fear that somebody could drop X piece on the map, and completely nerf GOWK's survivability, then no one will play him at all. In addition, a solution like this would severely hamper the effectiveness of any future pieces that are designed with SSM, something that I don't think any of us want to see.

Honestly, the only 'counter' I could see working if some Fringe piece that has a solid set of abilities (a la Boba of some sort, or other similar, notorious BH) is given an ability like "Enemies whose name contains Obi-Wan cannot use special abilities to avoid damage from this character's attacks". Would also screw up things like Obi-Unleashed with Rieekan's Evade, so again, difficult to counter one thing without screwing up something else.

One of the other things I've seen tossed around which I think could possibly work would be an idea similar to Programmed Target, where a figure would allow to select an enemy piece at the beginning of the skirmish, and take away an ability that allows you to avoid damage, or something like that. Again, I think that starts to slip into the realm of something that might be too powerful and unbalances other stuff, but it's at least an idea that I had. At least in that instance, that suggested 'counter' ability might be useless against most Sith squads. :P

Honestly, as I said at the top, I feel the only way to correct it is either through errata (highly unlikely, and almost more confusing than the ban), or through a new downloadable stat card (a la Elite AT-AT). Personally, I think the latter would be great. Still a tad bit of a nightmare from a tournament perspective, but if they tweaked GOWK somehow, and then pumped his cost up some, it would be easy to add up your opponent's squad and tell whether they were playing with the new stat card or the old one.

If they did that, I think there would be a good chance that he would become useless after the game grows for awhile. Then we would all be demanding the old card back from Wizards. I still think that we will see him back again after some shifts in the game. Force Corruption was put on a 20 point non-unique common. I think that is a sign of what is coming. We may end up seeing extremely useful direct damage pieces in the future. Then it will not be "I am only using this in case I have to face ****", instead it will be "I am using this because it is a cost effective and versatile piece".

Remember that if WotC decided to redo and make available via PDF for a new card for GOWK, you would then have people wanting the same thing for older pieces, pieces that aren't "right" *cough*Revan*cough*, and other little trivialities that may open another set of flood gates of grief and in-fighting. Although, I fully believe the redone card with proper costing, ability interaction, or just a complete slimdown for competitive format would be a good solution. However, I have to remind you that SWM, despite it's popularity, gets short shrift for anything that WotC does due to not having direct control on the product.

The other pieces that "aren't right" aren't banned. GOWK was banned for game balance and bottle-necking the Meta, printing another card to be used with him won't be that big of an issue if they unban him. Both cards would be legal to use in DCI if he were unbanned, however unlikely tha is. Same as the recent issue with the Elite ATAT driver and 181st Pilot, both cards are legal for the same figure. Though that situation was different as the piece wasn't right for the card, I think it would work for letting people play the piece the bought in the starter at DCI. Shop owners or other players could print up copies for those who don't have access to printing it up even.

And what's wrong with pieces like Revan? I didn't know there were issues with him on a large scale.

Yes, we did beat this horse to death, and we keep beating it in the hopes it will get up again. But, that's ok, with one hand we beat the dead horse and the other we call this voodoo witch doctor we know to bring over some zombie powder, so we can beat the horse to death all over again.