what does having a smaller squad size have to do with initiative??

Why is the choice of initiative tied to the points you spend on your squad?

There's no thematic explanation, but mechanically it's because a list that sacrifices points is at a disadvantage. You can take that disadvantage in order to gain the advantage of (now) choosing whether to shoot first or move last with your high-PS ships, as well as whether you want to place the first or last asteroid.

What's the big deal with a 1-point difference in squad totals, and is that really a big enough sacrifice to be worth gaining the right to make the initiative choice?

A 1-point difference in squad totals isn't that big, but initiative is typically also not that big.

But building at 99 isn't going to get you initiative in every match, either, so it's not necessarily a 1-point difference. Building at 98 makes it more likely, and building at 95-97 will probably get you initiative almost every time. What I like about this is that it's going to be a perfect economy: once these changes have a chance to propagate through the metagame and settle a little bit, the community will have agreed on how much initiative is worth (at least for some major list archetypes).

And I doubt that value will actually be 1, since if you have one of those rare lists for which initiative is important, it's really important, and the marginal value of cutting your list to 98 or 97 will probably be high enough to support that decision--and you'll need to avoid those lists that hang out at 99 because there just wasn't a particularly convenient or meaningful way to spend that last 1 point.

Also the thing to remember is that when it comes to shooting first, initiative isn't as important. because the only time it changes shooting order is same PS ships that get simultaneous attack rule. even if you destroy it, it still gets to shoot. so the only difference there is in the rare case of getting a crit that effects (affects? I always forget the grammar rule on that ) their shot. It's really a lot more helpful for maneuvering. something I wouldn't spend huge amount of squad points trying to get, but something that a lot of lists will care about.

Also the thing to remember is that when it comes to shooting first, initiative isn't as important. because the only time it changes shooting order is same PS ships that get simultaneous attack rule. even if you destroy it, it still gets to shoot.

You're right that the most important effect of initiative is the information available during the Activation phase, but there can be additional wrinkles in the Combat phase due to the action economy. As an example, suppose I have two Black Squadron Pilots, one of which is in-arc for your Red Squadron Pilot and one of which is not. If I have initiative, I might be able to use my out-of-arc TIE Fighter to strip the focus token from your X-wing, meaning that on average I've now cut the damage from your attack in half.

so the only difference there is in the rare case of getting a crit that effects (affects? I always forget the grammar rule on that ) their shot.

Usually, "effect" is a noun while "affect" is a verb. One easy mnemonic is that affect is an action.

(It's actually a bit more complicated than that because you can use "effect" as a verb to mean something like "accomplish" or "perform", and you can use "affect" as a noun to mean something like "attitude". But the idea above fixes things for the most typical usage of each word.)

What I like about this is that it's going to be a perfect economy: once these changes have a chance to propagate through the metagame and settle a little bit, the community will have agreed on how much initiative is worth (at least for some major list archetypes).

Yeah, I'm really interested to see if and how the rules change affects squad-building in high-level tournaments. I'd be very surprised to see any squad running at fewer than 98 points but we may see some really initiative-centric squads going to extremes in order to secure the option. Or not. It'll be interesting either way.

I said it before, and will repeat, there are a number of combat situations where going first or second matters a lot more than just a crit, even in a simultaneous fire situation:

- Turr firing first to escape the arc and return fire

- Killing your opponent's Jonus or Howlrunner before his equal-PS ships fire at you

- Cracken or Garven firing first to provide a defensive boost to a target, or let them clear an arc

- Stress-granting ships (Flechette, R3-A2) firing first against a same-PS target with Opportunist

Those are off the top of my head. There are a number of other longshot situations I can think of, say Dutch with R5-K6 taking a shot which relocks and lets him pass a lock to someone with an R7. And with the direction things are going, plenty of possible space for more.

The value of initiative isn't what I'm asking (since players will determine the value of everything in this game). I'm trying to get your opinions on whether the cost of gaining the initiative choices appropriately high enough (since the game designers have dictated its cost).

I'm curious how you can have a discussion on whether the cost of something is appropriate without considering its value.

The value of initiative isn't what I'm asking (since players will determine the value of everything in this game). I'm trying to get your opinions on whether the cost of gaining the initiative choices appropriately high enough (since the game designers have dictated its cost).

I'm curious how you can have a discussion on whether the cost of something is appropriate without considering its value.

The value of initiative isn't what I'm asking (since players will determine the value of everything in this game). I'm trying to get your opinions on whether the cost of gaining the initiative choices appropriately high enough (since the game designers have dictated its cost).

I'm curious how you can have a discussion on whether the cost of something is appropriate without considering its value.

It's value shifts depending on matchup, build, and opportunity cost. Basically it's impossible to deternmine.

Which was exactly the point I made earlier.

But Dave says pretty directly he wants to discuss cost without discussing value. That's pretty much an impossibility.

It's equally impossible to discuss the value of a choice without considering the value of the result. For example, what's the value of choosing to have initiative when there are no pilot skill overlaps in the two squads? Pretty much zero. What's the value of choosing to have initiative in a Gamma vs. Dagger match? Relatively high.

You cannot make an absolute evaluation of cost when the value of what you're buying is variable. The value of initiative IS the value of the choice.

I think something a little bigger than a 1-point gap would be a more appropriate cost/sacrifice for squads that rely on having or not having initiative, if they really want to secure the option. I would be happier with a 2-point or 3-point gap, like a mid-priced upgrade card. It's a just gut-level feeling I have, though. Someone who's better at number-crunching could convince me that the current approach is just fine.

This is a more appropriate way to frame what I think you're trying to get at. The problem is that it doesn't work. If we lock the value of initiative, then we can discuss the reasonableness of the cost for that value. The problem is, that's impossible. How do you even define "squads that rely on having or not having initiative", much less evaluate it? What about squads that maybe kinda want initiative, but are fine if they don't get it?

It doesn't really matter if one point is too cheap, too expensive, or just right for a certain type of squad, because it's impossible to apply that cost only to a certain type of squad. The only way to do it would be to have a squad declare, as part of squad building, how important initiative was to it, perhaps by taking a unique "Commander" upgrade with different costs, and then whoever has the bigger "Commander" gets the choice.

Which, incidentally, would function identically to what we have now.

One other problem I see with this evaluation is that you assume 1 point gets initiative. That's far from guaranteed. You only have to spend 1 more point than your opponent on trying to get initiative, but that's not the same as 1 point. So really, you're not only trying to put a cost on a variable value, you're putting a variable cost on a variable value. That's just not going to end well if you try and start applying absolutes.