This is a discussion thread for the 2021 Balance Committee rulings.

Here are the rulings:
Balance Committee Rulings 2021

Notes on rulings

*Tournament Organizers and Judges can require players to list on a squad sheet (or provide a list) all characters, Reinforcements, or Reserves being used that day before playing. Characters should be ready to go during game set up. Delays in-game may result in a warning by a judge.

Reinforcements:
Free Reinforcements were introduced when SWM was being designed as a kill-em-all "fun" game. At the time there were around 40 Fringe options and Uggies, R7s, and Mice didn’t exist. We now have well over 200 Fringe options with serious threats players cannot ignore or play around to win. We feel hiding behind free pieces is against the spirit of the game. Hopefully, this is a positive change for the game.


Ban of Daala:
Sometimes you need to clear your countertop so you can set out all your available ingredients.
Gather your bowls, measuring cups, and recipes. Then invite your friends to share in some experimental cooking. It is so much easier to see what subtle flavors are missing when things are not saturated with the overwhelming flavor of Daala and bites of trooper. Now set your tournament oven to simmer for about 6 months to a year and let us see what new flavors rise to the top. Perhaps in time, we will find the perfect spices to make Daala delicious. . . or at least palatable.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Other Items of discussion:
Antares Draco
An Activation cap of 16 characters
A turn passing mechanic.
Changing Gambit
Games not ending before time if both players have pieces that can do damage left of the board.
A few others I am probably forgetting.
Antares Draco

The chosen format for Star Wars Miniatures competitive play is 200 point constructed. Tournament organizers and players want games to last no longer than an hour. The goal for players in these tournaments is to score 200 points within 1 hour, not to eliminate their opponent’s pieces entirely.

Is a player with attackers still on the board who failed to stop their opponent from reaching 200 points within an hour more deserving to win? Maybe sometimes? We are not prepared to thread that needle with a ruling that might punish players who reach the victory condition by handing the win over to the opponent who had more attackers.

These games can be incredibly challenging, and we want to encourage players to play faster and build squads to win games within an hour. Most of our tournament structure, scoring, gambit, and tiebreakers were implemented with that goal in mind specifically. We have discussed many ideas for changes to the game but feel they require more thought and testing.

The consensus of the balance committee is that we are not confident of any change to the above that would yield the desired result or community support at this time. These are complicated issues with varied sentiments among players. However, we understand these concerns and plan to explore ideas for positive change with plenty of community involvement over the next year. *See Ban of Daala

Finally,
Antares Draco:
We all know too well the widespread fear of the ever-emerging threat that is Antares Draco. Errata and even a permanent ban were considered. However, as we probed the underbelly of Star Wars Miniatures and peered into its deepest innerworkings, we made a startling discovery. Everything leads back to Antares Draco; he is at the center of it all! Therefore, we are left with only one option. We must change everything else about the game before reaching Antares Draco. Please do not feel discouraged, I know we can get there.

This was really unclear direction. It looks like you're asking us to post in the other thread

I'm not here to be a pain, I try and be unobtusive, but MOD HAT on for a second. We can't have two totally different threads with the same name. Whichever one you want folks to talk in, please edit the title to add Discussion to the end of it.

I wouldn't interpret it that way. They said daala is a temp ban as they review the bigger issues. This addressed reinforcements, which had general agreement from the community, and then stopped the bleeding wound that is daala while they assesses options (which the community was not in agreement on).

Everyone has bias, and that's a reason we have a committee. In theory we get a variety of biases that represent the community.

I do not think that on the issues of gambit, end game triggers and tournament scoring has representation on the committee equivalent to the concern the larger community has for it.

These are my opinions, and I don't think they are derogatory to anyone.

The fact that no action was taken in any of these areas proves that the majority of the balance committee specifically chose to not take any action. This is simply a fact.

I do no think anyone on the committee is intentionally trying to harm the game, I just think that certain individual's biases may blind them to certain things.

I am very upset over the non-action, but I don't mean to degrade any individual for their opinion.



I think what upsets me the most is that NOTHING was done. Not even a small token gesture.

The community poured out dozens of suggestions that could help. I for one think multiple changes in multiple areas are in need of change to combat this issue. But it would have been very simple for the balance committee to try something. Anything at all.


But instead they chose to do absolutely nothing to address this community concern.

It wasn't a simple yes or no decision. It should have been a decision of what method will we use, how impactful it will be, what area or areas do we examine, let's crunch some numbers, etc.

But unfortunately, directly from the mouths of multiple balance committee members themselves, it was not given real consideration. It was summarily dismissed with very little discussion, and moved on without a second thought.

There have been balance committee decisions in the past that have changed rules for fear of upsetting small groups of people (ironically I haven't seen most of them for quite some time, even after they got their way). Yet this collection of multiple issues was dead on arrival in the mind of many balance committee members, despite the fact that a large portion of the community voiced clear concern.

After the fact, balance committee members are just now publicly considering things that should have already had a deep dive of exploration from all balance committee members.

At the end of the day, life goes on. I wish balance committee members would have really explored and discussed options, and at the very least done some minor change to show that they hear the concern.


No action on any of the concerns of gambit, tournament scoring or end game triggers - was a VERY bold statement. A powerful message to many in the community that worry that the game has gone off the rails and turned into something that is far from it's origin and intent.

That message is this: This is what the game is now. Take it or leave it.



It's very disappointing.



That said - I will reiterate that I don't think anyone was intentionally doing anything to sabotage the game, or give themselves an unfair advantage. Their bias (which we all have) made them not want to make any change in these multiple areas, despite how many in the community have called for it.


So, though I am still a bit crestfallen, I will endeavor to be civil and continue my involvement with the game, and try and ignore the pain of what feels like a punch to the gut.

By other members of the Balance Committee?

I think there is something that I think many people are missing.

The game has changed.

It has changed in many ways over the years, some good, some bad.

Many people are still sticking with the same perceptions of the game that used to be true, but no longer are

Now many things were a problem, and many of us don't want to go back there. That's fine. However, some of these things we have actively tried to combat over the years to the point where the pendulum has swung, and we've gone too far. Now in some cases we have the opposite problem.

The game is imperfect, and it always will be. It's impossible to find a perfect balance, but I think striving for as close as we can get it the job of the balance committee. I unfortunately think many in the balance committee are still stuck in the ways things used to be, and not how they actually are now. Unfortunately many in the committee are not active in the game anymore. Some do an excellent job keeping up, others not so much. Etienne for example, was not involved much until the past few months. That's not a knock on him at all, we all have outside lives. However, he has missed seeing how much this game has changed during this time, and is stuck with past perceptions.

Then there is the fear trigger of many demonized things that haunt this games past. The fear trigger is so strong in some members that the mere mention of certain things shuts them off to any other way of thinking than - run from it as fast as you can or fight it as hard as you can. They continue to look at it through the same lens.

Here are some past issues that have changed, and many in the community still cling to.

1. We have a large non-engagement problem in this game.
Simply not true anymore. Engagement has gone up incredibly since the 3/2 scoring system was implemented. Many other changes over the years have contributed to that as well, including piece design and other floor rules and errata, such as the San/Dodonna/Ozzel nerf. Engagement isn't the problem, it's the ability to defeat all an opponent's pieces in the allotted time. Pieces survive longer by design. That makes for longer games.

2. Given the chance, many players will to cheat to win.
Again, absolutely not true. Our community is smaller, we all know each other for the most part, and I really believe players do not intentionally cheat anymore. This is of course different from playing within the rules, even in very frustrating ways, to win. That exists and will exist forever because we are gamers. What I refer to as "gambit abuse" is legal, as frustrating as it is. So is locking someone out of gambit for 5 rounds and declaring a win. I think it is incumbent upon us as a community and specifically the balance committee to see these NPE cases, and see if that is really what we want as a game. We can adjust as necessary. Many items of concern are not black and white, yes or no. It's a matter of degree, and finding the happy medium. How do we make it a disincentive to just camp in gambit and not attempt to defeat your opponent's pieces?

3. Lower activation squads can't compete.
This absolutely used to be the case. It has slowly changed over the years, and in the past few years has been obliterated. In fact, it has gotten to the point were lower activation squads have advantages over higher activation squads (outside of the interaction of the pieces on the board.) Many are so stuck in this thinking that they cannot see the reality of it. Need proof? Look at the results over the last year and a half. Take out the one clear outlier of Etienne's recent Daala squad (which has issues stacked upon issues) - and there is a dramatic change in activations. Example: Trever (tint) is one of the best players ever in our game, easy to say. However, I think it's also fair to say that he plays lower activation squads almost exclusively. He excels at them and likes them. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. He has absolutely DOMINATED tournaments during this time. I don't know what the highest activation squad that has won a tournament in that time is, but it is not very high. Many especially low. Now to be clear, Trevor almost always completes his games by destroying all his opponents pieces, and I would never complain about that. However, there are other players and squads that frequently don't finish, and that is not always the fault of slow play. In fact, more often than not - it isn't the fault of slow play. The pendulum has swung to the point where there is actually MORE of an advantage to play lower activations. Now players that like lower activations probably love this. Not everyone does though. I feel like I can speak from experience from both sides, having won Regionals with every faction, with activations ranging from 7 to 25. I personally don't want to go back to the 25 activation with activation control days, but we are in no danger of that. We've put too many floor rules, errata, and counters in play to ever have that come back. However, I feel like having a variety of activation levels that can all compete, is best for the game. In my opinion, the meta has actually shrunk.

4. High activations = low engagement.
Again a major falsehood. You can engage just as much with a high activation squad as a low activation squad. Adversely, you can not engage with a low activation squad. I personally feel like all players at all times should be actively seeking to defeat all your opponent's pieces in the allotted time. Building a squad specifically to ignore that and just camp in gambit is not what the game was meant to be, and frankly not very fun.

5. Games finish in under an hour.
One hour was the time limit for 100pts. Then 150. Then 200. Our game has gotten much more complex, and pieces are specifically designed to live longer. It's been asinine for a long time now that we are still stuck at one hour. Now we play competitive games almost exclusively online. We have stuck to the 75 minute time limit we used to have on vassal because it used to be more combersome. Typing everything into chat took time. Now we all speak in real time, vassal and our modules (thanks Trev!) have made advances to make it easier. It is actually quicker and easier to play on vassal, yet our time limit is longer. I think people are deluding themselves to think this is still an hour game. It's clearly not. Yes, certain squad types always play fast, win or lose. But do we want the meta shrunk to only those squad types? 75 minutes should be the standard ALWAYS now for 200pts. That extra 15 minutes is everything.

6. Scoring 100pts and losing means a player was engaged.
This is such narrow minded thinking it is silly. There are numerous examples where this is not the case, and designing a squad which wins or loses but scores 100 pts is fine, but not to the point where you compensate for incomplete wins by getting 100 pts during a loss. Again - I'll never complain about max point scored for a complete victory were all pieces on one side are defeated. But players that know they only need a 1 point loss to make it to the playoffs can very easily race to do that. Losing and getting to 100 is not hard, winning is much harder. Winning should be rewarded more. A 100pt loss is great to have as a tiebreaker between players with an equal record. It should not allow them to eclipse players with a better record.

7. Scoring 200pts means a player was engaged
Simply not true. Camping in gambit and locking other players out is not engaged. Legal? Yes. Should it be? No. Defeating all your opponents pieces is the ONLY way to inarguably say that a player was fully engaged. Every other scenario has exceptions. Thus defeating all of your opponents pieces should be rewarded the most, and always be the object every player is trying to achieve. We need tweaks to gambit, end game triggers, and/or tournament scoring to encourage this more.


Many people in our community have expressed that some changes have created room for players to win games and get more tournament points without truly engaging and attempting to defeat all the opponent's pieces. This should always be the goal. We need to close loopholes, or at least incentivize this to be the case. Clinging to outdated views about the game isn't helping the game, it is hurting it. Upsetting and ostracizing many players in the process. I implore everyone to have an open mind and see what are game is in actuality now, not what it used to be when you didn't like it.

Thanks for reading.

1. Things that helped fix the engagement issue were 10 point gambit, 1 point losses and act control nerf.

2. If you are in Gambit it is on your opponent to come to you... You are under no incentive nor should you have to be, other than making sure you get the full win. You have the advantage in positioning and should not have to give that up.

3. Until we implement a pass system, act limit or both, high activation squads will always have an advantage. It is built into the game. Any attempt to change that through piece design will only result in absurd levels of power creep.

4. Yes and no. High activation squads get to choose when to engage then can target individual pieces and take them out of the fight. The build up to the smash can be slow and after the smash the other player is left feeling like they did not get the chance to engage. Which is a completely legitimate way to feel. They set their squad up to do something and it was ripped apart before it ever got the chance. Also, if you face a counter that is lower activation, rest assured there will be very little engagement if the higher act squad can help it. On average..

5. If given the opportunity I always want to play more minis. That means playing 6 games in 6 hours though. Not 1 game in 6 hours. As activations go down it should take less time, not more. Even with SSM it will take you less time then a 20+ act squad. In short, we need to play faster or suffer the consequence.

6. In most cases they will only end up eclipsing a player with a better record if that player could not get 3 point wins or a 1 point loss themselves. Solution, get full wins and 1 point losses. Maybe 1, 2, 4 scoring, but that has it's own issues.

7. How do you suggest we eliminate lockout wins?

What's many people? I think I saw maybe 6 that thought we should have games play out to time instead of ending when it reaches 200.

Lock out victories suck, but they do provide an interesting dynamic in the game with the increased value it gives door control pieces. I have never experienced winning by lockout, but I have lost that way. Definitely not fun, but completely a result of being out played.

With that said I wouldn't mind eliminating it, if we did it in a concise non-confusing way. Your suggestion TINT doesn't leave much wiggle room for "what ifs". What if I lock a door so some of my opponents pieces can't get to me, but others can or even may already be in gambit with me? I do not think we want to remove locking doors from strategy entirely.

Honestly, I can't think of an answer to lockout wins. Unless we give some round in the game where you either can't lock doors or maybe a max Gambit you can score in 1 game. Say half of the build total? That doesn't entirely stop a lockout win though, just limits the over all effectiveness.

I think one issue we have in not coming to understand each other fully on this and related issues is that many people have different definitions on some base concepts.

I just had a very fruitful conversation with Laura on this topic. While we have some different perspectives on several aspects of the game, we have more alike than not.

I think that since as a whole, we have different definitions or ideas about base concepts, that leads to a lack of understanding on perspective.


I asked Laura a simple question: What is your definition of engagement?

Her answer: Both players actively engaging their opponents pieces, trying to defeat them all.
(I may have not quoted it exactly, Laura please correct me if so. I am confident the core is accurate.)

I thought that was an outstanding definition, and I agree 100%

So - from there - how do we promote ENGAGEMENT?

I think many people are looking at solutions to this through only one angle, and seeing only one way in which this is an issue. I think this is where understanding falls short, and when someone speaks about the same issue, but from a different angle - they come to the conclusion that they must be promoting non-engagement. This is not necessarily the case, and speaking for myself, certainly not the case.

Oftentimes we want the same end result, and that gets overlooked due to the angle that someone is looking at it.


To be clear - I am not promoting:
non-engagement
going back to the 20+ activation meta
going back to a place where rock squads aren't competitive
5pt gambit
rewarding slow play



What I do want is:

-incentivizing TRUE engagement

-incentivizing games finishing from defeating all (or at least all damage capable) pieces of an opponent

-Making full wins a higher priority.

200pt+ win and a loss with less than 100pts in my mind should be greater than an under 200pt win and a loss over 100pts. If we are promoting 200pt+ wins the most (hard to argue why we wouldn't), there should not be a way to equal or surpass that with a backdoor method through losses. If number of 200+pt wins and record are the same, THEN losses with over 100 can break that tie and give them the edge.

There have been a number of suggestions to make this happen, but at it's core - this is what the aim is.

Promote 200+pt wins as the goal. Every time. It needs to be rewarded more than anything else.