Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Star Trek: Attack Wing» Forums » General

Subject: A very unscientific survey of popular opinion about OP rule changes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Thomas Blackwell
United States
Middletown
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reading through the Arena OP Rule Change one of the chief opponents stated
BruinGirl wrote:
I can't (and I guess we will never really know) tell which side is the 'majority', but its clear that there is both a vocal group that is happy and a group that is upset.


So...
How do you feel about it, and how WizKids handled it?
Poll: OP Changes
1. How do you feel about the Arena OP Rule Change?
I like it!
I like that WizKids changed it, but the 180° turn is too much.
I like that WizKids changed it, but they should have done something entirely different.
I hate it! WizKids should have left it alone!
2. How do you feel about how WizKids handled the change?
Once the rules are released, they should leave them alone.
They shouldn't change the rules, but instead provide a suggested variant for the TOs.
Changing the rules is acceptable provided they are clearly communicated.
      108 answers
Poll created by Conphas


I have no experience writing non-leading polls. So if I presented the questions unfairly or in a leading way, I apologize. Also, if I missed an option let me know below.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel van de Laar
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't hate the rule change, but I certainly don't prefer it.

I can understand that the original rules made certain factions (like the Dominion for example) a risky bet, should that player lose the Captains Battle and end up facing the corner. Given that the Captains Battle amounts to a dice off, and that this is a game primarily about simulated combat in space, the notion that losing the dice off means for many factions that the loser must depend upon the mercy of the victor to stay in the game, it became clear that the OP seemed to favor not only certain Factions but also a certain "OP" style of play (I.e. If placing the losers ships in untenable positions gives a better chance of taking home the limited OP prize, then for the hope of going home with the prize the victor is willing to hamstring his opponent rather than fight it out).

Since not everyone can (or desires to) field a fleet from those few factions, the corner placement end game scenario was the primary strategic concern of everyone considering participating in this OP.

Honestly I really liked the intensity of that concern. It was making me think hard about the balancing the Captains Battle against both the game before and following it. I viewed the Captains Battle as a significant obstacle, not a physical one, like The OWPs of OP2, but both a psychological and a "scenario" obstacle, and was thinking through a strategy that might meet all these various tensions competitively.

I like it when a scenario makes me think that hard about a game I like. It is one of the reasons I have come to enjoy OP play.

So when the rules were amended, I could see and understand the amendment. Many players felt the scenario was too weighted to the Captains Battle because of the possibility (likelihood) of having their losing ships placed in an untenable position in the corner. Obviously the game designers heard this concern and reasoned that it was a valid one and amended the scenario in such a way as to address the concern.

I'm okay with that. I would have preferred to keep it as it was because I like the intensity and challenge it brought to the scenario - but I don't hate the amendment. It just isn't as much of (or the same kind of) challenge (to me at least) anymore.

DANVAN

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Townsend
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmb
Being the only person to vote "I like that WizKids changed it, but they should have done something entirely different", I thought I would explain my rational.

I am perfectly accepting that a change needed to be made. Running ships off the board is not really the way I would want to win. I think the 4" from the board edge, however, is what needed to be changed. They could have made it 8" from a board edge, and 4" from any other ship or board element. 8 Inches from a board edge was plenty of room for most ships to turn around. If you really wanted to play that Dominion Battleship, then perhaps you could take the "Skilled Helmsman" resource. Sure, its double Aux, but your ship was able to turn.

I feel the 180 turn around for free is way too much. So, even though you lost what was seemingly the very important part of the scenerio, we will reward you by giving you a free come about move (not really a move)that will not give you an Aux, and you get to make another move (The actual move). Voyager and it's 6 straight is going to blow right past all of the ships waiting to fire at it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Little
United States
Kissimmee
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Danvan wrote:
I don't hate the rule change, but I certainly don't prefer it.


Well put.

I wanted to jokingly suggest an "I don't care" option to question 1. I don't hate it, I don't like it, I really just don't think it changes that much in regards to the outcome.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Blackwell
United States
Middletown
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejlittle wrote:
Danvan wrote:
I don't hate the rule change, but I certainly don't prefer it.


Well put.

I wanted to jokingly suggest an "I don't care" option to question 1. I don't hate it, I don't like it, I really just don't think it changes that much in regards to the outcome.


Thanks for the input! Won't help now, but I'll keep it in mind if I ever want to become a pollster
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel van de Laar
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I used to work for a Pollster, and the main goal of most professional polls is not so much to capture every nuance, but to capture whether a nuance is essentially negative or positive and rate how extreme the opinion is.

Having said all that, I do very poorly in anticipating all the various opinions that would need to be expressed, in order to present a 'perfect' poll. It is a lot easier after the poll is presented for someone with an "other" opinion to identify opinions that you might have added had you more time in preparing it.

You did fine.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Thorpe
United Kingdom
Leeds
West Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't mind the change as I strongly opposed the ability to place a ship in an untenable position.

A scenario should be challenging but while it may favour a certain ship or ships it shouldn't (IMO) make any ship an untenable choice.

Having said this I'm not as keen on the method used to address the problem as I would have preferred an increase in the distance from the edge of the board.

I presume they have their reasons for this method (though I can't imagine what they are).

I would be totally happy with this if the turn actually represented your first maneuver and making it gave an APT.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Voshall
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The way the scenario was originally worded, it put too much emphasis on either going all in to win the Captains duel, or running a fleet of ships that has both the hitting power to take out your opponent with a low skill captain and also has the maneuverability to either come about or make two tight turns within 4 inches of the edge - criteria that fit a very, very few ships.

While increasing the minimum distance from the edge could work well, I think that a free 90 degree turn would be optimal - giving the opponent the chance to avoid an auto-kill, but still allowing you to place them in a bad position with your ships in either a rearward or flanking position once the battle reconvenes.

The 180 degree swingabout would counter that, meaning that the only thing you can do with the opponent is split their ships into a position where they can't easily join up and focus fire, ideally taking out the opponent before that can happen.

Overall, an improvement, I'd say, as it allows a greater range of strategies and builds that can be effective - something that is always a good thing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ghost Runner
msg tools
mb
Not having had the chance to run the scenario, it looks to me like the change was a good idea.

The ability to gang up on one of your opponent's ships is enough - you don't need to nail him to the sidewalk while you kick him.

Reading the original OP rules, the post-Captain Battle section seemed almost redundant.

I was hard pressed to find more than one or two builds that would really be competitive in the weakened placement with no Captains (Borg being the clear winner for that ability), so effectively it seemed the battle ended on the planet, and the ship-to-ship at the end was just a matter of how many Fleet Points the winner was going to get.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trueflight Silverwing
United States
Waverly
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It was pretty obvious that the person who created the Scenario Rules never thought of the whole "Place your Enemy Ships facing the corner" thing. It goes to show that the game designers aren't dinks when they play. I wouldn't really call it a change as much as an errata to fix an overlooked exploit. I think anyone that you find complaining about the change is just mad that their cheesy loophole in the rules that would allow them an easy win has been changed to make them have to play a more fair game.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Jackowski
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmb
Ghostrunner wrote:
Not having had the chance to run the scenario, it looks to me like the change was a good idea.

The ability to gang up on one of your opponent's ships is enough - you don't need to nail him to the sidewalk while you kick him.

Reading the original OP rules, the post-Captain Battle section seemed almost redundant.

I was hard pressed to find more than one or two builds that would really be competitive in the weakened placement with no Captains (Borg being the clear winner for that ability), so effectively it seemed the battle ended on the planet, and the ship-to-ship at the end was just a matter of how many Fleet Points the winner was going to get.


Why you no answer your PM's?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Romer
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know if this has been suggested or not, but I think a nice compromise on the change would be if a player wants to change the direction their ship faces after being placed they receive 1 aux token to rotate it 90 degrees or 2 aux tokens to rotate it 180. What do you all think of that?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Blackwell
United States
Middletown
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm finding the responses interesting (and I hope others are as well).

Right now it looks like the majority of people support the change, but the majority of those think it was fixed too much.

I'd be interested in play testing with both 90° turns and 180° turns. We've had a chance to try out/measure for the original rules, but has anyone tried the turns yet?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Obsolete Man
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ender02 wrote:
It was pretty obvious that the person who created the Scenario Rules never thought of the whole "Place your Enemy Ships facing the corner" thing. It goes to show that the game designers aren't dinks when they play. I wouldn't really call it a change as much as an errata to fix an overlooked exploit. I think anyone that you find complaining about the change is just mad that their cheesy loophole in the rules that would allow them an easy win has been changed to make them have to play a more fair game.


I agree. I don't think that the intent was ever to "corner hose" your opponent. I think that the intent was that you could split their fleet in order to defeat them in detail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Val Cassotta
msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
LoneWolfPR wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested or not, but I think a nice compromise on the change would be if a player wants to change the direction their ship faces after being placed they receive 1 aux token to rotate it 90 degrees or 2 aux tokens to rotate it 180. What do you all think of that?



I like the idea of the auto-Aux token. Though I would just make it 1
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.