This is ridiculous. One game ends up going slowly and it ends up with this big argument because some people have a need to criticise the "establishment." Isn't this like Death Baine's fourth or fifth time doing something like this?

Fair enough. Like I said I didn't check to see. So if this is now an issue then do we say shame on Deri for bringing that squad? Again this is silly.

Why don't you just state what specifically the problem is with the Gerry/Deri result?

What specifically is the problem with a play-off game going down like this? What negative effect does it create?

For me as an observer, I'd like to know which squad/player is better. In most 2-point wins, there has at least been significant engagement and in many cases it's clear who was going to win if another few rounds were played. In this case, who knows? We have a winner, which is good. But we don't really have any indication of which one was better. It's kind of like having a baseball season shortened due to a strike PLUS every single game was called due to rain after 6 innings. Yeah, somebody ended up in first place, but it's not a very satisfying result.

But that's just my own curiosity and interest in which squads are the strongest. (Kind of the reason I posted this poll/thread in the first place.)

So there's another question for everyone... given ample time, which of those two squads do you think would have won? Ackbar or Naboo?

Yep i only finished one game.

Am i happy about it? No
Did i try to stall out people? not once.
What could i have done to improve on it? Not run the squad i did.

the issue (with my game results) is one of strategy. The rebels are a bunch of peewee's, the quintessential glass cannons. A huge amount of pieces can wax anyone of rebel figures in 1 activation.

So how do you play a squad like that? You can't play head on because you lose as each lost piece destroys your synergy more. You must get ahead in points, force your opponent to engage you and trade down until you win. If your opponent doesn't engage after he drops behind in points who's fault is it? Whether you win by killing the opponent outright or getting ahead on point depends on how much time there is.
1 hour is not long enough when you are facing a swath of +15 mice between you and your opponents main pieces. Its not long enough when your opponents main pieces swap off the backranks of the map with 3 point brutes. Its not long enough when you have 10 of 21 pieces facing you that will kill any of your pieces when you kill them.

You want fast games?

ban activation control.
Ban override
limit 12 activations, no reinforcements.


Other than that, accept that this game doesn't play like you want it to, because otherwise will continue to happen.



After i took out R2 i fancied my chances but it wouldn't have been a quick game.

Just ban the Rebel scum.

I'm fine with low scores and even running away while ahead on points. Heck, I beat 100-point Luke with Yobuck by literally killing every other character on his his and then running away from luke every round after that. The score ended up being about 100-95. There was a lot of engagement, but any more would have ended in Luke killing Yoda on a Djem So.

I use this as an example to pose this question: Why, when balance is clearly at its highest point in history, would we want to scare any one squad type away from the game? Punish squads for being what they are, and you'll only hurt the diversity that the v-set team have worked so hard to create and maintain. I want every one of the many squads now viable to have at least a chance against any other squad. If that chance is by lockout, fine. If it involves several rounds of positioning, fine. As long as there is no deliberate slow play, I'm all for low scores.

Can I get an amen, or am I speaking out of line? :P

Amen. Diversity is good. If you're only getting 2 point wins, and still win enough games to make the playoffs, that's all good.

Then why have a difference in wins at all? There is absolutely no incentive to play a squad designed to get 3 point wins that may lose and has many more bad matchups, instead of playing a high act act control, movement breaking squad that is designed to just get 2 point wins... and then win games in the playoffs by just turning pieces on the back row then killing one piece and going yep onto the next round.....

There wasn't much tempo control in the top 8 last year, I think? Neither of the previous two GenCon winners had tempo control - Bastila/JBMs and Mace/GOWK. It feels like a reasonably delicate meta adjustment - some people like fiddly tempo control squads, some people like big rock squads. Last year the big rock squad won GenCon, and there was a thread on gamers complaining about it.

This year two squads with tempo control made the final, and a delicate Rebel squad made the top 4, and we have a post complaining about low scoring games that can result from fiddly squads. I'm sure the designers will take this data on board and try to balance the game a little more, but I still think we're already at the point of reasonable parity.