Star Wars: War of the Dream Teams Rules Clarification Thread

[Aurbere]

Another point that needs to be voted on by the Council:

 

Are we in favour or against 'freezing' debates midway and allowing reinforcements etc. to come into play during the interlude.

 

I am against - because I feel it leaves lose ends when this is not necessary and demands that we keep track of several debates at once. The reason for turn-based play is to remove this problem.

 

I do not want to freeze debates midway through. It is unnecessary. If the argument is that reinforcements will come in during that 'freeze,' then I would like to point everyone to the 'Attacking' Sub-Section in my formal list of rules.

 

When an attacker declares an attack, their ally can immediately join in the attack as long as they have a force within four grid-squares. There is no reason to pause a debate unless it is moving to a land battle, and that is because a land battle is basically a new battle.

[Aurbere]

Its just I see some one using say plo koon in a star fighter to help his space forces and people saying I focus fire your star fighter and blow Plo Koon up because he is in a ****** fighter....... I am sure people who chose champions that could pilot is so they wouldn't just be a ground force and with this their is no reason for the person siting the skill and the already multiple times that Plo Koon has avoided all of this stuff and how in a hectic battle focusing 1 fighter in which you cant even determine who is even in it would almost be ignored do to hey he is in a ****** fighter there is nothing to stop my fighter killer from decimating him... you lose Plo Koon to what I can refer to as nothing less then stupid.

 

Why would I put Plo Koon in a starfighter? His abilities as a pilot are good, but his abilities as a tactician serve my purposes just fine.

[Beniboybling]

1.1- Agreed

1.2- Agreed

1.3- For In-Universe explanation. The wealth/resources of the supplier would allow for the different deployment of troops. Ultimately this clause was placed in to allow for campaigns that stretch far away from your main worlds (Like Aurbere attacking Wolf.) I am willing to remove it pending council vote.

1.4 Optional in the sense of a permanent garrison that gains defensive bonuses. You station troops (in order to benefit from planet you will have to) however those troops can be moved later whereas a garrison can not.

2.1 Agreed

2.2 Agreed

2.3 My argument for 1.3

3.1 Agreed

3.2 Agreed

3.3 The number of troop is the only thing affected by this clause, not the location of spawn. Agreed on your addition.

1.3. My vote is against.

 

1.4. Permanent garrisons are necessary, if you opt for a non permanent garrison then move your forces, that planet because neutral and effectively easy pickings.

 

OK, so if you agree on those points it would be great if you could integrate them into your post. Then at a later date we can perhaps outsource that to a new rules thread.

[tunewalker]

Why would I put Plo Koon in a starfighter? His abilities as a pilot are good, but his abilities as a tactician serve my purposes just fine.

 

it was an example...... put any one who has great piloting skills there.

[Beniboybling]

Its just I see some one using say plo koon in a star fighter to help his space forces and people saying I focus fire your star fighter and blow Plo Koon up because he is in a ****** fighter....... I am sure people who chose champions that could pilot is so they wouldn't just be a ground force and with this their is no reason for the person siting the skill and the already multiple times that Plo Koon has avoided all of this stuff and how in a hectic battle focusing 1 fighter in which you cant even determine who is even in it would almost be ignored do to hey he is in a ****** fighter there is nothing to stop my fighter killer from decimating him... you lose Plo Koon to what I can refer to as nothing less then stupid.

If its stupid, then the argument will be rejected.

 

I.e. I reject your argument on the basis that Koon is an excellent fighter and will easily be able to outdo any fighters you send against him, and if the going gets tough, Koon can get going.

 

Substitute plot armour for reasoned debate. Plot armour is stupid.

 

I.e. Plo Koon solos your entire fleet! Response: wait, how does that work. Plot armour!

Edited May 15, 2013 by Beniboybling

[tunewalker]

If its stupid, then the argument will be rejected.

 

I.e. I reject your argument on the basis that Koon is an excellent fighter and will easily be able to outdo any fighters you send against him, and if the going gets tough, Koon can get going.

 

Substitute plot armour for reasoned debate. Plot armour is stupid.

 

I.e. I have a gun to Thrawn's head, I pull the trigger. Response: Plot armour!

 

That is a covert ops a covert ops can happen in the middle of a fight it happens all the time like taking down shields while an enemy is busy fight if you want that you make a covert move because you have to board the enemy ship for this boarding a ship takes a strike team a strike team requires a covert move the Plot armor thing is to ENSURE stupid doesn't occur.

[Aurbere]

I.e. I have a gun to Thrawn's head, I pull the trigger. Response: Plot armour!

 

Why is everybody targeting Thrawn?

 

I know it's an example lol.

[tunewalker]

If its stupid, then the argument will be rejected.

 

I.e. I reject your argument on the basis that Koon is an excellent fighter and will easily be able to outdo any fighters you send against him, and if the going gets tough, Koon can get going.

 

Substitute plot armour for reasoned debate. Plot armour is stupid.

 

I.e. Plo Koon solos your entire fleet! Response: wait, how does that work. Plot armour!

 

No that's wasn't the CASE it says in a BATTLE YOU WIN thus if you win the fight any attrition you take will not affect your command staff unless it was another command staff that kicked their *** or you made a covert move to do so.

 

Edited because rage is getting the best of me and I shouldn't allow that to happen.... I appoligize every one.

Edited May 15, 2013 by tunewalker

[Beniboybling]

That is a covert ops a covert ops can happen in the middle of a fight it happens all the time like taking down shields while an enemy is busy fight if you want that you make a covert move because you have to board the enemy ship for this boarding a ship takes a strike team a strike team requires a covert move the Plot armor thing is to ENSURE stupid doesn't occur.

No its not a covert ops. Everyone could see me soloeing your pathetic excuse for a fleet with Plo Koon and everyone gasped as the thousands upon thousands of blaster bolts missed his ship and then all screamed as Plo Koon systematically killed them. All using plot armour which effectively makes Koon invincible.

 

How does plot armour prevent the stupid?

[Aurbere]

I.e. I reject your argument on the basis that Koon is an excellent fighter and will easily be able to outdo any fighters you send against him, and if the going gets tough, Koon can get going.

 

Technically, Plo Koon could just scare any organic pilot off via telepathy (see Stark Hyperspace War).

[Beniboybling]

No that's wasn't the CASE it says in a BATTLE YOU WIN thus if you win the fight any attrition you take will not affect your command staff unless it was another command staff that kicked their *** or you made a covert move to do so.

 

Edited because rage is getting the best of me and I shouldn't allow that to happen.... I appoligize every one.

That doesn't explain in anyway how this could every be regarded as a valid argument:

 

Its just I see some one using say plo koon in a star fighter to help his space forces and people saying I focus fire your star fighter and blow Plo Koon up because he is in a ****** fighter....... I am sure people who chose champions that could pilot is so they wouldn't just be a ground force and with this their is no reason for the person siting the skill and the already multiple times that Plo Koon has avoided all of this stuff and how in a hectic battle focusing 1 fighter in which you cant even determine who is even in it would almost be ignored do to hey he is in a ****** fighter there is nothing to stop my fighter killer from decimating him... you lose Plo Koon to what I can refer to as nothing less then stupid.

 

As you said its stupid so it won't happen will it?

Edited May 15, 2013 by Beniboybling

[Aurbere]

I think the Plot Armor clause should be removed. It has good intentions, but the flaws pointed out are very glaring.

[tunewalker]

No its not a covert ops. Everyone could see me soloeing your pathetic excuse for a fleet with Plo Koon and everyone gasped as the thousands upon thousands of blaster bolts missed his ship and then all screamed as Plo Koon systematically killed them. All using plot armour which effectively makes Koon invincible.

 

How does plot armour prevent the stupid?

 

the argument of who wins will not take plot armor into account already said this only when tallying losses in a battle in which YOU WIN do you not lose your command staff if you LOSE the fight there is only a chance for the command staff to escape ONLY A CHANCE if you get DECIMATED and lose with your command staff present you most likely lose that member Plot armor is not an argument for winning only an argument for tallying forces. Please go back and re-read it beni you are saying stuff that's already covered its clear you read the title and said no with out actually reading the rules.

[Beniboybling]

Technically, Plo Koon could just scare any organic pilot off via telepathy (see Stark Hyperspace War).

Well there we go then. Koon doesn't need plot armour, if he's pathetic enough to get killed in a battle he is winning then he deserves to die.

[tunewalker]

That doesn't explain in anyway how this could every be regarded as a valid argument:

 

Its just I see some one using say plo koon in a star fighter to help his space forces and people saying I focus fire your star fighter and blow Plo Koon up because he is in a ****** fighter....... I am sure people who chose champions that could pilot is so they wouldn't just be a ground force and with this their is no reason for the person siting the skill and the already multiple times that Plo Koon has avoided all of this stuff and how in a hectic battle focusing 1 fighter in which you cant even determine who is even in it would almost be ignored do to hey he is in a ****** fighter there is nothing to stop my fighter killer from decimating him... you lose Plo Koon to what I can refer to as nothing less then stupid.

 

As you said its stupid so it won't happen will it?

 

oh if you think that you don't know these forums well enough stupid spews out from the least expected places so ya it will trust me it will.

[Beniboybling]

the argument of who wins will not take plot armor into account already said this only when tallying losses in a battle in which YOU WIN do you not lose your command staff if you LOSE the fight there is only a chance for the command staff to escape ONLY A CHANCE if you get DECIMATED and lose with your command staff present you most likely lose that member Plot armor is not an argument for winning only an argument for tallying forces. Please go back and re-read it beni you are saying stuff that's already covered its clear you read the title and said no with out actually reading the rules.

Again, still confused as to what that example has to do with anything.

[tunewalker]

Well there we go then. Koon doesn't need plot armour, if he's pathetic enough to get killed in a battle he is winning then he deserves to die.

 

just wait, some one is going to lose a command staff member to stupid I garentee it right now its unavoidable.

[tunewalker]

Again, still confused as to what that example has to do with anything.

 

everything read the darn thing just go read it since its clear you havent

[Beniboybling]

oh if you think that you don't know these forums well enough stupid spews out from the least expected places so ya it will trust me it will.

You forget there is a council of six who decide the outcome. I wouldn't accept this argument I have no doubt that the other five would. Nor do I believe anyone involved in this tournament it stupid.

[Beniboybling]

just wait, some one is going to lose a command staff member to stupid I garentee it right now its unavoidable.

I will ensure it does not happen, but only accepting reasoned arguments. What I will not do is reject a perfectly reasoned argument as to why a member of someones command staff is killed because said person lost the match.

[tunewalker]

You forget there is a council of six who decide the outcome. I wouldn't accept this argument I have no doubt that the other five would. Nor do I believe anyone involved in this tournament it stupid.

 

very well but when it happens all I will have to say is I told you so.

[Aurbere]

just wait, some one is going to lose a command staff member to stupid I garentee it right now its unavoidable.

 

I assure you that if a command staff member has to die, it will be via covert ops, or losing a battle.

 

The Council has to take into account every argument, and choose the most likely victor based on those arguments and canon fact.

 

Let's say that Plo Koon is invading a planet and his forces are met with stiff resistance. One argument presented states that all troops focus fire on Plo Koon. The opposing argument is that Plo Koon's troops and vehicles will prevent that, while he deflects or dodges any blaster fire headed his way. Which argument is most likely to happen.

 

Considering Plo Koon's skill in blast deflection, and the troop backup he has, I'd go with scenario number two.

[StarSquirrel]

1.4. Permanent garrisons are necessary, if you opt for a non permanent garrison then move your forces, that planet because neutral and effectively easy pickings.

 

It's semantics Beni. You need a garrison to get bonuses (I said this earlier). Thus garrisons are almost required. I guess I'll just include that every planet has to have some troops (non-specified number minimum 100) garrisoned on a planet to control it.

 

I guess my point is that troops in garrisons can't be moved at all but get defensive advantages whereas a mobile garrison (I'll say these troops get stationed) can reinforce a battle or move to another planet and that is their advantage. A planet can have a combo of permanent and stationed garrison.

 

The way I see this working, I garrison 1,000 troops at Rhinnal and 1,000 troops at Ralltiir (permanently). I then have another 10,000 mobile stationed at Ralltiir. If someone attacks Rhinnal, I can send the 10,000 from Ralltiir to Rhinnal but not the garrisoned 1,000.

 

This sound good?

[StarSquirrel]

I assure you that if a command staff member has to die, it will be via covert ops, or losing a battle.

 

That is exactly the proposed plot armor Aurbere...

[Beniboybling]

It's semantics Beni. You need a garrison to get bonuses (I said this earlier). Thus garrisons are almost required. I guess I'll just include that every planet has to have some troops (non-specified number minimum 100) garrisoned on a planet to control it.

 

I guess my point is that troops in garrisons can't be moved at all but get defensive advantages whereas a mobile garrison (I'll say these troops get stationed) can reinforce a battle or move to another planet and that is their advantage. A planet can have a combo of permanent and stationed garrison.

 

The way I see this working, I garrison 1,000 troops at Rhinnal and 1,000 troops at Ralltiir (permanently). I then have another 10,000 mobile stationed at Ralltiir. If someone attacks Rhinnal, I can send the 10,000 from Ralltiir to Rhinnal but not the garrisoned 1,000.

 

This sound good?

Yup. Sounds good.