I have a question regarding excluded characters. For the purpose of a reasoned debate, should character with little information, or characters that are flame-centric, be excluded?

Characters with little information will be excluded, though I doubt that should prove an issue for that very reason. I won't pose any restraints on 'flame-centric' characters though. Revan for one didn't pose many problems in the Kaggath, likely largely because his Force powers were not the main issue.

 

And Revan in particular would make a good addition to any team, given his charismatic and intelligent mind.

Characters with little information will be excluded, though I doubt that should prove an issue for that very reason. I won't pose any restraints on 'flame-centric' characters though. Revan for one didn't pose many problems in the Kaggath, likely largely because his Force powers were not the main issue.

 

And Revan in particular would make a good addition to any team, given his charismatic and intelligent mind.

 

You know what? It's fine. I don't care.

I have a question. As this is a Kaggath, is our Head of State the leader that can be soloed to end the match (killing the leader is often how more cunning/smaller forces tend to win.) or can we chose which of our leaders gets that honor?

 

My question is because if someone picked say, Chief of State Leia Organa Solo, she would be easier to assassinate than say, Darth Traya.

Edited July 2, 2013 by StarSquirrel

I have a question. As this is a Kaggath, is our Head of State the leader that can be soloed to end the match (killing the leader is often how more cunning/smaller forces tend to win.) or can we chose which of our leaders gets that honor?

 

My question is because if someone picked say, Chief of State Leia Organa Solo, she would be easier to assassinate than say, Darth Traya.

 

I always assumed that's why we had a second in command if they wanted to off us they had to take out both of them not just one.

I always assumed that's why we had a second in command if they wanted to off us they had to take out both of them not just one.

 

Which is why you pick a chain of command that can easily and effectively replace lost leaders.

Which is why you pick a chain of command that can easily and effectively replace lost leaders.

 

Its kind of like Darth Vader and Sidious in this regard had the just killed the emperor and not turned or killed Vader he would have just declared himself the new emperor and continued pretty much as if nothing had happened..... you wouldn't have the charismatic leader any more but you would still have a leader.

I have a question. As this is a Kaggath, is our Head of State the leader that can be soloed to end the match (killing the leader is often how more cunning/smaller forces tend to win.) or can we chose which of our leaders gets that honor?

 

My question is because if someone picked say, Chief of State Leia Organa Solo, she would be easier to assassinate than say, Darth Traya.

Well originally it was game over if your Head of State dies. But given the nature of this Kaggath, and what other's have said, I think a chain of command structure would be a good idea.

 

So if Head of State dies, they are replaced by your Second-in-Command. But if you don't have one, or your Second-in-Command is killed, it is game over. I'll edit that into the rules.

Well originally it was game over if your Head of State dies. But given the nature of this Kaggath, and what other's have said, I think a chain of command structure would be a good idea.

 

So if Head of State dies, they are replaced by your Second-in-Command. But if you don't have one, or your Second-in-Command is killed, it is game over. I'll edit that into the rules.

 

Was the revised Alliance of worlds acceptable?

Was the revised Alliance of worlds acceptable?

I just PMed you.

I just PMed you.

 

Hopefully I resolved everything... I left multiple back ups for you this time so if more problems came up you could let me know.

OK, signing off now. Feel free to keep PMing me, posting etc. but I won't be able to respond until tommorow. Until then!

I just sent you my choices!

Sounds fun, just sent you a PM! Very exciting! Edited July 3, 2013 by Canino

I'm up for it, will be sending my choices in a couple minutes.

Oh beni when everything is set up and you have your contestants are you going to announce who is fighting who at the start. I suggest you try to make the starting line ups as balanced against each other as possible since we all know some teams are really going to strive here while others may fall quick against some of the more difficult ones.

Oh beni when everything is set up and you have your contestants are you going to announce who is fighting who at the start. I suggest you try to make the starting line ups as balanced against each other as possible since we all know some teams are really going to strive here while others may fall quick against some of the more difficult ones.

Yup, I'll conduct it in a similar manner to the previous tournament which should lead to more fair matchups as well.

I assume that the forces of all players will be anonymous until this starts?

I assume that the forces of all players will be anonymous until this starts?

Yup. Yup.

Beni, sent you my corrected forces. And I must ask, the proximity of the controled-planets will be relevant, like in the War of the Dream Teams?

Beni, sent you my corrected forces. And I must ask, the proximity of the controled-planets will be relevant, like in the War of the Dream Teams?

Yes, but not in any specific way. Though it should be noted that your ground force and naval forces will be based at their respective planets, military or naval bases. I think that's something I'll hash as we go (before each debate).

 

So yeah, it kinda is important I guess. But no square based system or anything.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Beniboybling

Yes, but not in any specific way. Though it should be noted that your ground force and naval forces will be based at their respective planets, military or naval bases. I think that's something I'll hash as we go (before each debate).

 

So yeah, it kinda is important I guess. But no square based system or anything.

 

Okay, just checking, cause I spent a lot of time setting up my planets.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

 

I've decided to make a rule change to naval forces, which will now operate in the same manner as ground forces i.e. you can either have one major naval forces - a navy - or two minor naval forces - a pair of fleets. Though said fleets cannot be from the same navy or faction.

 

If you'd like to change your naval force in light of this, just PM me.

 

EDIT: Also I've decided to lift the ban on the CIS and Galactic Republic Navies - however they will only possess half their original numbers to make it more fair. Again if you'd like to change your faction in light of this, just PM me.

 

Just to clarify this hasn't affected my current selections at all yet right I don't have to change anything... I have the option to but I don't have to correct if I am still happy with my choices.... just clarifying.

Just to clarify this hasn't affected my current selections at all yet right I don't have to change anything... I have the option to but I don't have to correct if I am still happy with my choices.... just clarifying.

Yeah that seems to be what he said,

 

The Rule in an example format

1 Major Navy (ie, CIS Navy, GA Navy, Imperial Navy)

or 1-2 Minor Naval force(es) (ie, Death Squadron and Black Fleet or just Black Fleet)

 

So yeah if you have what you want you don't HAVE to change