How will C3V units affect the Metagame?

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

To my mind, for the same reason that OEAO decided against using such a strategy, it is flatly unacceptable. It's the kind of rules exploit that, when exposed in a major sport, leads to rules being changed. When the New Jersey Devils started playing their boring but effective neutral zone trap defense in the early to mid '90s, the NHL changed the rules to open up the game again.

In 'Scape, it might not lead to rules changes, but I imagine it would lead to format changes.

Such a player - podding up on height with artillery, and never moving - would deservedly be a pariah.

It would lead to a stern talking to from every organizer at GenCon. This type of strategy is really quite unacceptable at GenCon; there’s nothing to win but minor notoriety and dice. It’s quite casual compared to competitive events for other games.

I do want to point out that when I say I considered that Charos, Cyprien, Marro Warriors army, I never even got around to testing it. I built it more to see if it could be done (and I’m almost certain it can be). It’s not something I’d ever do, but I think that and similar strategies exist (Q9 Rats Raelin is actually fairly adjacent, although that is at least pretending to play the game).

[robbdaman]

It's called "Turtling" and is definitely frowned upon in pretty much every war/skirmish game and in the ones I have played have effected rules changes as well as banned lists including engagement requirements leading to forfeiture of a game because one side didn't do anything.

Going by points could result in winning games due to time but also losing placement because of failure to gather enough points to advance. If someone has a record of 4-1 but overall has a total of destroyed points higher than someone with a 5-0 record then the army wasn't built competitively but to stall. Good reasons I think that Rats and Raelin should be banned from tournaments IMO as they are simply poor design to structure armies around.

[IAmBatman]

You could say that for any defensive figures, but defensive figures allow glass jawed offensive figures to compete in the metagame, so there are “legitimate” ways to use them as well, not just turtling. Banning Raelin and Rats for what they do for Q9, for instance, then you should probably ban Gladiatrons for what they do for Blastatrons.

[robbdaman]

Meh, Blasts/Glads aren't nearly as annoying without Raelin. There are other ways to boost without being as undercosted as Raelin 1.0 resulted in being. Adaption of a metagame is common, maybe more so in card games like Magic than in miniatures games however when a specific figure becomes too obviously overutilized it should be removed. As I said if a fall back for a player is to toss in Raelin into every army that's poor for both players and game design.

[dok]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

Sure, but I think it’s a fundamentally different army. I almost didn’t want to post about it because I think it’s a strategy that’s absolutely horrible for the game, but I just don’t think anything other than Dwarves can consistently kill that army in a traditional 55 minute tournament rounds. It’s goal is solely to go to time being up on points every game. At 400, you get 1x Rats; at 410, Marro Warriors. That’s insane, and it should time out every game ahead on points.

I don't think this is the most exploitative time-out army. In most relevant matchups, I'd expect it's inferior to a more deathreaver-heavy build (and more generally, deathreavers and Raelin) if you are looking to slow down the rate of kills in the game. Yes, rats bleed points as you lose them, but it's a very slow bleed involving very inexpensive figures.

Incendibords are hard to kill but hardly invulnerable - they take losses starting the fourth time you crack a defense of 4. They won't tend to last much longer than something like Nilfheim if you leave them exposed to attacks.

Also, if you're using C3V you could obviously also move to partial squad scoring, which further diminishes the stall-out potential.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

To my mind, for the same reason that OEAO decided against using such a strategy, it is flatly unacceptable. It's the kind of rules exploit that, when exposed in a major sport, leads to rules being changed. When the New Jersey Devils started playing their boring but effective neutral zone trap defense in the early to mid '90s, the NHL changed the rules to open up the game again.

In 'Scape, it might not lead to rules changes, but I imagine it would lead to format changes.

Well, you could argue those changes have already come through to some extent, in the form of the shift away from double blind. Of course that was done for many reasons aside from the potential for stalling armies.

That said, armies that are designed to be specifically strong in a timed round format have absolutely been a thing at Gencon. Part of the reason we saw the rise of armies with multiple unique squads or 1x common squads (particularly 1xmezzos), sometimes alongside Raelin, was their strong performance in a timed format with full card scoring. And remember that, before 2017, you only played with them in the timed format, and against them in an untimed format. While I'm not by any means accusing those players of attempting to engineer wins on time, part of the appeal of playing those armies was that you aren't vulnerable to slow play from your opponent.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Such a player - podding up on height with artillery, and never moving - would deservedly be a pariah.

The strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent when you have a range advantage has not and does not make you a pariah. It's been done by many players in many situations, including some very well-known examples by players with fairly pristine reputations.

Note, though, that there's a huge distinction between taking a defensive posture, versus intentional slow tournament play in an effort to win on time. The former is OK, the latter is absolutely not. I've almost never heard of anyone pushing that particular boundary at Gencon, although even the handful semi-unintentional timed victories where the victor played unusually slow that I've heard of created a lot of bad feelings.

[robbdaman]

Discussions of banning aside I've used Incendiborgs a fair amount and while they are tough (for 180 points they should be) as Dok says they can't hold up to constant pounding. I've also run into good players that limit what they can burn quite well with their positioning so their special attack doesn't do much.

Back in my D&D Miniatures days there were a couple of well known "analysis paralysis" players that we often accused of stall play and received warnings and even was told they lose their turn as a result of being too indecisive. If I was a judge it'd be something I'd be more than happy to do. Games as supposed to be fun, that type of play isn't.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by dok

The strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent when you have a range advantage has not and does not make you a pariah. It's been done by many players in many situations, including some very well-known examples by players with fairly pristine reputations.

Note, though, that there's a huge distinction between taking a defensive posture, versus intentional slow tournament play in an effort to win on time. The former is OK, the latter is absolutely not. I've almost never heard of anyone pushing that particular boundary at Gencon, although even the handful semi-unintentional timed victories where the victor played unusually slow that I've heard of created a lot of bad feelings.

You took that line out of the context of my post.

Podding up range on a hill to win is perfectly normal and acceptable. Doing so to win - because you have what I referred to as artillery, and not just Stingers / 4th Mass / whatever - on the clock is what makes you a pariah. To borrow competitive chess parlance (though not competitive chess philosophy), you do not play to "flag" your opponent.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by dok

That said, armies that are designed to be specifically strong in a timed round format have absolutely been a thing at Gencon. Part of the reason we saw the rise of armies with multiple unique squads or 1x common squads (particularly 1xmezzos), sometimes alongside Raelin, was their strong performance in a timed format with full card scoring. And remember that, before 2017, you only played with them in the timed format, and against them in an untimed format. While I'm not by any means accusing those players of attempting to engineer wins on time, part of the appeal of playing those armies was that you aren't vulnerable to slow play from your opponent.

Now THAT'S a take!

A bad take, but a take nonetheless. The reason we started running those armies has literally nothing to do with being up on points at time (at least, not for myself or my build group, who have played many of these armies). We run them because many people can't play them, giving us "byes" in RtW rounds. Outside of Nathan (who goes to time for non-malicious reasons), most of us finish all of our games. Although what you're saying is true (that these armies are nice in a timed, full-card scoring format), saying that this plays any sort of role in our army-selection decision making is not. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't.

(Note of course that we aren't the only ones playing these armies, but we constitute a decent majority).

[kevindola]

We've definitely gone off topic here, but I was at a live timed tournament event many moons ago, and my opponent, who I will not name, and i had played a few rounds in the finals and the board state was such that the score of the game went to time with a pair of kills my opponent would win:

Opponent
1 life Cyprien (150)
Sonya (45)
1 Stinger (60)
Total: 255

Me:
14 10th Regiment Remaining (300)

The tournament rules were that after time goes off you finish the round before going to full card scoring and he was going last with an OM 3 on Cyprien. He conjectured that he could win by sitting and waiting the 35 minutes left on the clock until the end of round then flying Cyprien in for a 3v3 attack and Chilling touch that if he hit both he would win the game, by knocking my full card scoring down to 225 to his 255.

He sat there thinking about it not moving for a good 5 minutes before I called the Tournament Director over. The tournament director, who I will not name, ruled that my opponent's strategy was valid and if he decided to sit and wait for 30 more minutes then take the final turn of the game the result would stand.

I can do little describe the anger I felt in this situation. I will say that the rest of the tournament goers got wind of the situation and enough negative vibes were sent out towards this individual's strategy that he did not go through with it, took his turn and we finished as normal.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by kevindola

We've definitely gone off topic here, but I was at a live timed tournament event many moons ago, and my opponent, who I will not name, and i had played a few rounds in the finals and the board state was such that the score of the game went to time with a pair of kills my opponent would win:

Opponent
1 life Cyprien (150)
Sonya (45)
1 Stinger (60)
Total: 255

Me:
14 10th Regiment Remaining (300)

The tournament rules were that after time goes off you finish the round before going to full card scoring and he was going last with an OM 3 on Cyprien. He conjectured that he could win by sitting and waiting the 35 minutes left on the clock until the end of round then flying Cyprien in for a 3v3 attack and Chilling touch that if he hit both he would win the game, by knocking my full card scoring down to 225 to his 255.

He sat there thinking about it not moving for a good 5 minutes before I called the Tournament Director over. The tournament director, who I will not name, ruled that my opponent's strategy was valid and if he decided to sit and wait for 30 more minutes then take the final turn of the game the result would stand.

I can do little describe the anger I felt in this situation. I will say that the rest of the tournament goers got wind of the situation and enough negative vibes were sent out towards this individual's strategy that he did not go through with it, took his turn and we finished as normal.

As much as I dislike FCS, that's more of a problem with the TD in question. The proper course of action for something like that would be:

1. Warning 1: "You have to actively play the game"
2. If that doesn't solve it, Warning 2: "Play the game or I'm issuing you a game loss"
3. If that still doesn't work, game loss

Luckily, I doubt it would ever even get to step two, as step one almost never needs to happen.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by kevindola

I will say that the rest of the tournament goers got wind of the situation and enough negative vibes were sent out towards this individual's strategy that he did not go through with it, took his turn and we finished as normal.

Of course the other tournament goers responded that way. What your opponent was doing is heresy, as I said.

I'm disappointed that your TD tolerated it, temporarily, but I'm glad that the will of the community was nevertheless served.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

You took that line out of the context of my post.

Podding up range on a hill to win is perfectly normal and acceptable. Doing so to win - because you have what I referred to as artillery, and not just Stingers / 4th Mass / whatever - on the clock is what makes you a pariah. To borrow competitive chess parlance (though not competitive chess philosophy), you do not play to "flag" your opponent.

I have seen multiple players at Gencon (none of whom are considered pariahs) play for the win on points (e.g. running away to preserve a squad) once the final round has been called. It's a bit distasteful, to be sure, but it's generally considered borderline acceptable. I've never done it or had it done to me, but it's not a horrible thing to do.

What's not considered acceptable is to play slowly with the intention of bringing forth that "last round" call earlier in the game.

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

Now THAT'S a take!

A bad take, but a take nonetheless. The reason we started running those armies has literally nothing to do with being up on points at time (at least, not for myself or my build group, who have played many of these armies). We run them because many people can't play them, giving us "byes" in RtW rounds. Outside of Nathan (who goes to time for non-malicious reasons), most of us finish all of our games. Although what you're saying is true (that these armies are nice in a timed, full-card scoring format), saying that this plays any sort of role in our army-selection decision making is not. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't.

(Note of course that we aren't the only ones playing these armies, but we constitute a decent majority).

First, bolded for emphasis in my earlier message.

Honestly, it's a bit silly to say it plays no sort of role in your army-selection decisions. After all, at least pre-2017, you wouldn't have played an army that has a major problem with bleeding points early and then losing on time. Saying the army is highly resistant to that problem is just the converse of that. (Note, again, that I phrased it as "not vulnerable to slow play from your opponent", not "designed to win on time".)

For my part, despite not playing these sorts of 1x squad armies (unless you count 1x glads), I have considered how sensitive my main event army is to the time limits every year. It's why, for example, I never played Marro Warriors before 2017 (very strong on day 2, didn't always get to use that value on day 1). (I haven't played MW in the last three years either, but I'm no longer opposed to them on principle.)

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

As much as I dislike FCS, that's more of a problem with the TD in question. The proper course of action for something like that would be:

1. Warning 1: "You have to actively play the game"
2. If that doesn't solve it, Warning 2: "Play the game or I'm issuing you a game loss"
3. If that still doesn't work, game loss

Luckily, I doubt it would ever even get to step two, as step one almost never needs to happen.

100% agreed. That's a terrible ruling by the tournament director.