Jump to content

DrUnK3n_PaNdA

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DrUnK3n_PaNdA

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Seattle, Washington, United States
  1. Game Gurus will be holding a Netrunner tournament on Saturday, May 23rd. We've got a ton of prizes to drop on this one and hope for a big turnout. Players will be paired up at 3PM Sharp, so show up early! Space is limited to the first 12 players. The entry fee will be $5 If you have any more questions regarding the tournament, please contact me at: boardgames@seattlegamegurus.com For directions to the store or any other information, head to: seattlegamegurus.com
  2. Hey there, We'll be running a tournament Sunday, May 31st at Game Gurus in Seattle, Washington. All standard tournament rules apply, but we are using 150 point squads this time around by popular demand. Round time will be 75 minutes for all rounds including finals. Number of rounds will be based on number of players. Space is a bit limited to 12 players, so show up early. We will begin pairing players at 3PM SHARP. We have a ton of prize support from the newest and some older prize kits we'll be giving out Entry fee is $5 If you have any questions regarding the tournament please contact me at: Boardgames@seattlegamegurus.com For directions to the store or other information check out: Seattlegamegurus.com
  3. Absolutely. That is the issue here. But then shouldn't extremely evasive flying be governed by the same rules? As I said, he did speed up, but was he still going too slow? Was he still stalling? After the second warning he was taking around 5 minutes planning, 5 minutes for two actions, which is more reasonable, but IMO really skirting the limits of what is acceptable. I'm not defending the player, only my decision as a TO to not disqualify. Really I was starting this thread to get a consensus on what people feel slow-play is and where the lines of player conduct should be drawn. In many cases the sportsmanship rules are very clear, verbally abusing your opponent, measuring when you shouldn't, surreptitiously leaving templates on the board and staring at them while you plot your moves and I've warned and disqualified players for similar things (though in other games.) This isn't a problem I've had before at an X-Wing tournament, and it's difficult without a frame of reference. The slow play rules are pretty nebulous. I've played with the player in question (and his opponent) on numerous occasions and in each the player in question has played very, very slowly. Playing more slowly than normal in a late tournament round seems very reasonable, which is why I have to question motivation. What a soft time limit from FFG does is allows me as a TO to leave motivation out of the equation. As it is now, it is legal to play slowly as long as you're not doing so intentionally... but even if you're not intentionally stalling, then you're still hindering your opponent and the tournament organizer (If you're taking as long as he was.) However taking the same amount of time intentionally is DQ-able. This means I have no rule I can point to other than, "I think you're doing this intentionally." I am usually good at reading people and he seemed genuinely apologetic after both warnings and attempted to speed his play both times. So, by the word of the rules, if it wasn't intentional, I was right not to DQ him, even though I felt like I should because of the effect it had on his opponent. See the problem?
  4. I'd just like to bring up the fact that this was a Grand Final match. There was no time limit and he was behind in points. He had no motivation to stall 'for time.' Meanwhile he did have reason to be very critical and deliberate in his movement... Which is another reason for my hesitation in disqualification, and was under the impression prior to the first warning that 'there is no stalling in a game without a time limit.' (Paraphrasing) It seemed more likely that he was suffering severe analysis paralysis or was trying to frustrate his opponent, but it was very difficult to discern which. However, intentional or not, his slow play was detracting from the experience and performance of his opponent. I understand that disqualification is the job of the TO, but in a situation where motivations are uncertain I find it a difficult call to hand out, especially in Grand Finals. I'm not asking for a hard time limit either, FFG should even stress that it's the job of the TO to determine what the situation is at the table and account for it when making any decision to disqualify tournament participants. However, some indication of where to consider drawing the line would be nice. For the slower players among us, 5 or even 10 minutes may seem totally reasonable. This is why it helps to have a guideline even if not a hard limit. I also think that Grand Finals matches should be timed. Perhaps given an extra 30-45 minutes over normal rounds, but a time limit encourages aggressive, exciting play, makes player motivations clear for the sake of calls like this and adds urgency to the players' timing. Also it would let a poor T.O. get home before midnight.
  5. Of course in this case it was a Grand Final match, so really game loss was the same as a DQ in essence. That was my feeling, as well that one warning to DQ was too harsh.
  6. I would say the no premeasuring rules are there to reward spatial awareness. In fairness he was running an outrider with engine upgrade. He had a lot of options to think about, but not enough to excuse that amount of time dedicated to planning. He sped up after his first warning and again after his second. He avoided a DQ by going at the very limit of what I would deem acceptable, but he was still flying very evasively.
  7. This was my point in posting this here. It would be nice if FFG would offer some guidelines, even if vague ('about five minutes per ship'.) If not to help TOs make that call, then to give them something to point to, to reduce the drama of disqualifying someone. When you make a call to DQ it can be easily seen as arbitrary or unfair. More precisely worded rules make you seem more justified to the players, particularly the one you are ejecting or warning, meaning less chance of there being drama. That is a good idea about stating potential consequences, I had thought they were implied if the TO is making a point of warning a player, though. In this particular situation his opponent in the Grand Final game never complained, which is another reason I wasn't quick to DQ him, nor had any of his games up until finals gone to time.
  8. I recently finished running a tournament and wanted to see some input from other X-Wing players with an impartial point of view on what exactly constitutes stalling or slow play and how they might deal with potentially problem players. I certainly understand that the final rounds of a tournament can be stressful and mentally taxing, especially when one is behind in points, but routinely taking 10-15 minutes for a single ship's planning and a further 5-10 for it's activation is excessive. Incidentally that's not an exaggeration. I timed it. One of his earlier opponents in the finals conceded due to frustration. I suspected that was part of his game plan, frustrating his opponents into sloppy play with evasive flying and slow playing. My players were understandably very upset, but I was reluctant to disqualify someone from the later rounds of a competitive level event for something that could be chalked up to extremely (insanely?) cautious play. The players were obviously very upset for having to wait on the game, especially his opponent, so it was difficult to get an impartial opinion on how to handle potential slow-play in the future. I gave the player 2 verbal warnings and stayed at the table to referee, coaxing the player to take less time with his decisions. Still he tested the limits, only dipping into firing range every few rounds. He did win, and I don't question his game-plan of not trading shots unless unavoidable, just the time he took with his turns in addition to it. My question is this, should I have disqualified him? What should I have done differently to keep the situation from arising? Grand Finals are currently un-timed in X-Wing events. Are the rules for player conduct clear enough? If there is money and prizes on the line, the potential for drama late in a tournament is very high, I think it would be helpful to have more tools as a TO in the form of guidelines to make calls on stalling/slow-play. As I remember there was also some stalling drama at Worlds last year. Clearly this is a problem that should probably be addressed.
  9. The Game Gurus tournament is being held at 4:00pm, not 6:00pm. Sorry for any inconvenience. I, the store's event organizer, had a bit of a mis-communication between myself and the manager posting the event on the site.
  10. The problem is that there's almost never an advantage for playing a small character, unless you're fighting a lot of things with Silhouette 2. Brawn is already far and away one of the most important stats, and from a game balance standpoint it's kind of hard to justify that decision on the developers' part, which is why I doubt it. Personally I think it should be tied to presence or something, more of a nod to Cyberpunk where body modification is most taxing on your sense of self. I think it's debatable even in RAW, however. It's one enhancement in spite being two legs. Technically cybernetic eyes are two separate pieces used in tandem as well. Should they, by extension also take up two cybernetic slots? I say the intention was 'one heading, one enhancement.'
  11. Since it requires both legs to get the bonus I would consider that to be one cybernetic enhancement. As in, each heading is one type of enhancement, and it's the types of enhancement, rather than number of instances of each enhancement that you take into account. This makes way more sense from a rules standpoint, since the second limb provides no bonus, and if anything is actually a disadvantage. The wording is rather ambiguous, but having the legs take up two 'slots' seems unintended at best or poorly thought-out at worst. The only mechanical purpose I could see for designing it the other way would be to give a secondary option for more stat bonuses with a diminishing return on the bonus to 'cybernetics slot' ratio, which is, when you think about it a pretty terrible idea. It means that a character must have at least 3 brawn at character creation to achieve the best high end stats... when Brawn already factors into WAY too many stats as it is.
  12. So, to clarify, and I'm sure I already know the answer... but my group is disagreeing a bit on Cybernetic Legs. Does a pair of cybernetic legs count as a single cybernetic enhancement (i.e. could someone with Brawn 1 get cybernetic legs?) And is the cost in the book for one, or for a pair? The wording seems to imply that they are a single enhancement and the cost is for the pair... but it's not stated specifically that it's the case. Some clarification in the book or errata would be nice for the 'that guys' that many groups have.
  13. I'll be hosting a draft tournament at Game Gurus' Aurora location on Saturday, July 26th. Entry fee will be $25 which includes Starter, Runner and Corp packs. We have a ton of prizes from the new Summer tournament kit and are eager to give them out to players. The tournament will begin at 3pm sharp. Please show up early to register, as space is limited to 8 participants. If you have any questions, or would like to pre-register, check out the store website at www.seattlegamegurus.com
  14. Next Wednesday, April 23, at Game Gurus in Seattle we'll be running an X-Wing tournament with a very special format. 100 point squads should be built using standard rules for tournament play. However, each round every pair of players will be given a random scenario from the core set to play (Asteroid Run, Dark Whispers, Political Escort or Dogfight.) Then the player with initiative may choose whether he would like to play the attacker or defender in the chosen scenario! Play will begin at 6pm. There's no entry fee and a TON of prizes to go around. Late-comers are allowed, but will be marked down for a loss in any round they miss. Just the same there should be enough prizes to go around. Space is limited to the first 12 players, so please give us a call or show up early to ensure a chance at some of the sweet X-Wing swag we've got piling up. For more information, such as address and any further updates check out the store's site at www.seattlegamegurus.com
  15. Hey all, we're going to be running a Netrunner tournament at 3pm on Saturday the 12th. We've got a couple boxes worth of prize support that have been piling up over the OP seasonsand we intend on blowing it all out at this event. This means LOADS of sweet prizes. The tournament will be held at Game Gurus in Seattle. For further details, such as address or other contact information, check out our website at: www.seattlegamegurus.com Due to the sheer volume of swag we'll be giving out there will be a five dollar entry fee. Table space is limited to the first 12 players so come early! If you'd like to pre-register, give us a call and we can save a seat for you!
×
×
  • Create New...