The order ability could be errata'ed. E.g. "Choose an adjacent friendly figure. That figure may perform an additional move action during its next activation. Limit once per activation."

I really like this idea, although with multiple officers it could get complicated to remember who has received an extra action with out using some kind of token. But the concept is solid.

In my opinion no opinion is of any value (including my own), if you can't support it with facts. Therefore let me add some facts to support what I said:

...

And now let's put the keyword and the order ability back into the equation.

What will be the result of this equation?

This summary is superb, you covered pretty much everything and explained the problem perfectly. Spot on.

Not quite, the comparison to stormtroopers was a bit lacking.

It ignored the advantage of having 3 troopers to a card, being able to activate figures at a faster rate can be very good, they can benefit from reinforcements and your opponent won't score points until all 3 figures are dead.

The advantage of having a 2 cost deployment card is great, but once rebel/scum get 2-3 cost non-unique deployment cards that advantage slips away without having to errata the officer.

The leader cards, that were claimed to be the best in the game, don't work as well with the officer's order ability. 2 don't work at all and 2 require you to be adjacent to the target figure.

The campaign game is fantastic, the skirmish game will catch up.

A game with a large FAQ and errata will have a harder time attracting new players.

In my opinion no opinion is of any value (including my own), if you can't support it with facts. Therefore let me add some facts to support what I said:

...

And now let's put the keyword and the order ability back into the equation.

What will be the result of this equation?

This summary is superb, you covered pretty much everything and explained the problem perfectly. Spot on.

Not quite, the comparison to stormtroopers was a bit lacking.

It ignored the advantage of having 3 troopers to a card, being able to activate figures at a faster rate can be very good, they can benefit from reinforcements and your opponent won't score points until all 3 figures are dead.

The advantage of having a 2 cost deployment card is great, but once rebel/scum get 2-3 cost non-unique deployment cards that advantage slips away without having to errata the officer.

The leader cards, that were claimed to be the best in the game, don't work as well with the officer's order ability. 2 don't work at all and 2 require you to be adjacent to the target figure.

The campaign game is fantastic, the skirmish game will catch up.

A game with a large FAQ and errata will have a harder time attracting new players.

The Stormtrooper "advantage" doesn't even touch the activation advantage. Recurring the softest units in the game and using 3 models at once is pretty pathetic when for the same cost you can have 3 officers forcing you to activate those troopers when they have no effect on the game. And the Officers shoot as well/better and have better defense. I'm sure Elite Rebel Sabs would LOVE to see you play Stormies over Officers.

IF Rebel/Scum get a 2/3 cost non-unique that's not part of a group. When do you think that's going to happen Wave 4? So this time next year? I have to say, I'm pretty skeptical, but even if that does happen, enjoy talking about the officer for a second regional season. I'm sure it won't get old.

Uhhhh the Leader cards ARE amazing. Since when is positioning with officers a problem? Isn't that like half of the point of having them? Hint: Officers can order other officers. Second Hint: Officer Order -> Move keeps you up pretty well. Planning is an auto-include, Inspiring Speech is silly it basically takes basic RG up to RGC levels, Regroup makes you impervious to Stun/Bleed, New Orders is the most situational, but it also produces some ridiculous turns. Show me the trait that has better command cards... Even 'Heavy Weapon' has weaker cards.

Yea, X-Wing's 16 page FAQ is sure stunting those new players. That's why their Regionals are up 50% in attendance from last year across the board.

Sorry, but the arguments are trying to make are just crazy.

The only thing that's crazy is that people have already decided what the meta will be 1 year from now, when the additional content will arrive, how popular the game will be next year and that the already announced content won't balance the game.

Some people see the glass half empty, some see it half full.

Some see IO as broken, some see IO working as intended.

Something that is obvious after 3 games won't have slipped past playtesting.

The IO is what FFG want it to be.

If it upsets you that much talk to your TO, aside from premier tournaments (SC's, regionals, nationals, world's) the TO can enforce additional squad building rules.

Feel free to play your games with whatever rules you like, but I want to play the game as FFG intended.

I would not dare to predict, what the meta would be in 1 year. There are to many variables. I just believe to know what the meta is right now. But let me ask: Do you disagree about Hida77s or my description of the current meta?

I HATE house rules. I absolutely want to play the game as FFG intended. Locally, we do not use house rules, as we always aim for the high standard of premier tournaments.

I just feel hard to believe, that the IO works as intended, at least in skirmish. But this is just how I feel. "I wonder if your feelings on this matter are clear." You never know.

But what I do know, is that facts don't lie. The IO definitely is unbalanced in skirmish. I wouldn't like the fact, that a figure is intended to be unbalanced. Therefore, I prefer to believe, that this issue has slipped past playtesting. This is my version of a glass half full.

And don't get me wrong, neither I'm upset nor did I intent to vent or to confront anyone.

I believe, that there is one unbalanced figure in this game. In my opinion, the rest of this game is absolutely great. I love this game. Therefore, it was my intention to just help solving a problem, and nothing more. I'm neither the "half full"- nor the "half empty"-type of guy. I'm the "let's refill the glass"-type of guy.

If it upsets you that much talk to your TO, aside from premier tournaments (SC's, regionals, nationals, world's) the TO can enforce additional squad building rules.

Feel free to play your games with whatever rules you like, but I want to play the game as FFG intended.

You clearly didn't read the article or most of the posts in this thread...I am the TO and have adjusted my local league... I will have another article that you won't read later today/tomorrow with the overwhelming positive feedback I have received in less than a week.

I have to agree with DerBaer. I find it really hard to believe that FFG intended for skirmish to be like this. I find it much easier to believe that they balanced the officer for the campaign and thought it would be fine for skirmish and were mistaken.

Sure, the meta might be wildly different this time next year. If FFG has a fix coming, it sure would be great if we could have it previewed, so we could start talking about the game post-officer. Unfortunately, we have no indication anything is changing at all. Let's just say this, nothing that has been previewed or revealed thus far leads me to believe we won't be still talking about him in a year without errata. We can sit idly and hope a fix is coming, or we can vocalize our frustrations and ensure it is addressed. I'll take the latter, since the game is boring as hell right now.

I'm neither the "half full"- nor the "half empty"-type of guy. I'm the "let's refill the glass"-type of guy.

*chuckles*

If it upsets you that much talk to your TO, aside from premier tournaments (SC's, regionals, nationals, world's) the TO can enforce additional squad building rules.

Feel free to play your games with whatever rules you like, but I want to play the game as FFG intended.

You clearly didn't read the article or most of the posts in this thread...I am the TO and have adjusted my local league... I will have another article that you won't read later today/tomorrow with the overwhelming positive feedback I have received in less than a week.

I have to agree with DerBaer. I find it really hard to believe that FFG intended for skirmish to be like this. I find it much easier to believe that they balanced the officer for the campaign and thought it would be fine for skirmish and were mistaken.

Sure, the meta might be wildly different this time next year. If FFG has a fix coming, it sure would be great if we could have it previewed, so we could start talking about the game post-officer. Unfortunately, we have no indication anything is changing at all. Let's just say this, nothing that has been previewed or revealed thus far leads me to believe we won't be still talking about him in a year without errata. We can sit idly and hope a fix is coming, or we can vocalize our frustrations and ensure it is addressed. I'll take the latter, since the game is boring as hell right now.

That's because next to nothing has been previewed so far, which is why all of this sounds so absurd to me. What happens if they spoil something that balances the factions? What will you think when you look back at all of this doomsaying and realize that it was unfounded, or premature?

If it upsets you that much talk to your TO, aside from premier tournaments (SC's, regionals, nationals, world's) the TO can enforce additional squad building rules.

Feel free to play your games with whatever rules you like, but I want to play the game as FFG intended.

You clearly didn't read the article or most of the posts in this thread...I am the TO and have adjusted my local league... I will have another article that you won't read later today/tomorrow with the overwhelming positive feedback I have received in less than a week.

I have to agree with DerBaer. I find it really hard to believe that FFG intended for skirmish to be like this. I find it much easier to believe that they balanced the officer for the campaign and thought it would be fine for skirmish and were mistaken.

Sure, the meta might be wildly different this time next year. If FFG has a fix coming, it sure would be great if we could have it previewed, so we could start talking about the game post-officer. Unfortunately, we have no indication anything is changing at all. Let's just say this, nothing that has been previewed or revealed thus far leads me to believe we won't be still talking about him in a year without errata. We can sit idly and hope a fix is coming, or we can vocalize our frustrations and ensure it is addressed. I'll take the latter, since the game is boring as hell right now.

That's because next to nothing has been previewed so far, which is why all of this sounds so absurd to me. What happens if they spoil something that balances the factions? What will you think when you look back at all of this doomsaying and realize that it was unfounded, or premature?

Uh, I will be happy and go on playing? I will not be embarrassed if that's what you are insinuating. Why should I be? I'd much rather be wrong. That doesn't change my opinion at the moment.

I cannot predict the future, but I also cannot simply accept things the way they are.

I love how you keep saying "When..." and I keep saying "If...". You assume it will happen, whereas I expect nothing. Philosophical differences I guess.

I don't know why you wouldn't be embarrassed, it's only human. All of this "the sky is falling!" business is going to look real silly if and when the meta pans out. If you hope that you're wrong, why don't you accept that as a more plausible inevitability and have some patience ?

Tell me, do you really "love" my choice of words, or are you just being sarcastic?

*yawn* is this STILL going on?

*yawn* is this STILL going on?

Agreed....

I don't know why you wouldn't be embarrassed, it's only human. All of this "the sky is falling!" business is going to look real silly if and when the meta pans out. If you hope that you're wrong, why don't you accept that as a more plausible inevitability and have some patience ?

Tell me, do you really "love" my choice of words, or are you just being sarcastic?

I suppose, but I don't know how silly it is to have an opinion. Your statement is easy enough to turn around. What if you are wrong and we are still discussing the Officer a year from now? Would you not be the silly one? Is it really all that embarrassing if we both could have been wrong but ultimately only one of us was? In any case, this is now WAY off topic. I am not embarrassed by forming an opinion and a course of action even if it ends up being unnecessary. If I was, I would be embarrassed constantly.

I'm not being sarcastic, just pointing out that your viewpoint is optimistic, while mine is more skeptical. There's nothing necessarily wrong with either. Sometimes I think you just like being argumentative.

I have been patient since April when I posed the issue to FFG via e-mail, a week before I posted about it online. I'm tired of waiting while my playgroup suffers, especially when this has really been a problem since early January. I didn't raise it then since I had patiently hoped Wave 1 would do something about it given the game was just the core set at that point. And there was plenty to mess around with, like Campaign. Wave 1 didn't fix it. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath Wave 2 will. So I took it upon myself to save my league while I still could. It may not be enough. My regional already appears that it will be hit hard, which is a shame. We'll see how it goes, but that's not a good sign. Hence my frustration with all the secrecy and lack of even a public admission that FFG is looking into it.

Should this not have been super obvious in playtest almost a year ago?

I don't see the IO as being the problem, at all, I see it as being a choice.

When people call 3x IO spam they are overreacting, it's only 3 figures for 6 points.

Do those same people shout "OMG they're spamming troopers" every time they play against a single trooper squad?

At this point in the game the imperials have a HUGE advantage, to the point that it's almost a one faction game. If almost all players use imperials then they have access to a counter to IO in the form of IO's (and neither side can spend more than 20% of their points on them.

Yes, playing against constant 4/4 lists would be boring and bad for the meta. But it's a problem caused by spending 80% of your points on RG (that classes as spam) and not spending 20% on IO.

I don't think the tournament scene is what FFG intended and I blame delays caused by the dock workers strike for that. FFG held off on releasing the tournament rules for as long as possible but in the end released them before the figures were available, forcing them to go with 3 maps instead of 10. Unfortunately the reduced map set favours the IO build, changing the map set would help a lot.

Everything I've seen of the new content makes me hopeful for the future, but the waiting is unbearable. We've had some deployment cards fully spoiled, you could print them out and use them now (get everyone to bring in their SWM heavy trooper figures) to shake up the meta.

There's a difference between merely having an opinion (and a negative one at that, which you're welcome to have), and claiming that a game is going to die a mere handful of months after release without any meaningful data to support that claim. It's a matter of proportion. I can disagree with a person about a great many things without feeling like either of us should be embarrassed, but when it reaches this level of absurdity I can't help but shake my head. We see it all the time on the X-Wing forum, and that game is only growing in popularity. I can only imagine the same is true for FFG's other properties, at least in the former respect. How many of FFG's games have actually died because they neglected to respond to a pressing issue? I'm not aware of any. It's possible that might happen to IA, but it'd be the first and only game to do so. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Look, I don't want to single you out; you're clearly not the only one to hold this opinion, so my comments are directed very broadly to all similarly minded individuals. You're entitled to your perceptions of the game, just as I'm entitled to my perceptions of you . You may be ambivalent about the latter, but that doesn't make me wrong. This, all of this, looks extremely premature to my eyes, and FFG has a great track record for handling these kinds of issues. That's why I feel like all of this doomsaying is silly, and that's why I keep pressing you to have some patience, if not a little faith. I'd like to think FFG's deserved it.

Getting back on topic, I will never look down on someone for playing with house rules, but I do want you to understand that your particular fix, the one being advocated in this thread, isn't very likely to happen.

The next stuff is on the boat.

Soon we'll be able to find out who is right the old fashioned way, by killing rebel scum and getting evidence to support our claims.

Yes, playing against constant 4/4 lists would be boring and bad for the meta. But it's a problem caused by spending 80% of your points on RG (that classes as spam) and not spending 20% on IO.

How are you this obtuse? You still don't understand what people are complaining about.

9Act is at least as broken as 4/4 (I actually think it's worse), but doesn't spend 80% of its points on RG. Does that clue help?

Take Darth Vader. At 18 points, he's powerful, but do you take him, can you fit a good list around him? Suppose he were only 4 points. Would you take him? YES! By your logic, if Darth Vader were 4 points he couldn't possibly be broken because that's only 10% of the list. That's the point. That's why it would be broken.

Imperial Officers being only 8 points for 4 (and as effective as they are) is the reason they are broken . But you're pointing it as evidence that they can't be broken, because 8 points is only 20% of the list. That doesn't make sense ... it's not even coherent, much less rational, let alone logical.

IO's are one of the very few support units in the game, and the only one that is non-unique.

The problem isn't that they are too efficient, it's that the other factions haven't got their cheap supporting units yet.

At the moment it's like beating a one legged man in as ass kicking contest.

I'd rather wait for him to fetch his false leg, even if the boat is 6-8 weeks away.

You'd rather cut off your own foot to give him a fair fight right now.

Yes, playing against constant 4/4 lists would be boring and bad for the meta. But it's a problem caused by spending 80% of your points on RG (that classes as spam) and not spending 20% on IO.

How are you this obtuse? You still don't understand what people are complaining about.

9Act is at least as broken as 4/4 (I actually think it's worse), but doesn't spend 80% of its points on RG. Does that clue help?

Take Darth Vader. At 18 points, he's powerful, but do you take him, can you fit a good list around him? Suppose he were only 4 points. Would you take him? YES! By your logic, if Darth Vader were 4 points he couldn't possibly be broken because that's only 10% of the list. That's the point. That's why it would be broken.

Imperial Officers being only 8 points for 4 (and as effective as they are) is the reason they are broken . But you're pointing it as evidence that they can't be broken, because 8 points is only 20% of the list. That doesn't make sense ... it's not even coherent, much less rational, let alone logical.

You sound bitter.

If the Officer is so broken why did CA get 14 and Rebels won. AZ got 16 and Rebels won. Rebels won at Chicago with only 8 but I think they could of done pretty well if R. was not out of town with his buddies which would of gave us 16?

If the Officer is so broken why did CA get 14 and Rebels won. AZ got 16 and Rebels won. Rebels won at Chicago with only 8 but I think they could of done pretty well if R. was not out of town with his buddies which would of gave us 16?

/facepalm Okay, that pretty much takes us full circle doesn't it?

Edit: Johnny, sometimes I wonder if your goal in life is to make me quit talking about IA completely.

Hida I was not directing that comment at you. At bitter and crew taking this broken talk too far. If something is broken those squads should be winning 80% of the time that's not the case and clearly skill is still a factor. If you go 6-0 in any event it's more than luck in my eyes. If something is broken skill level is thrown out the window and clearly that not the case. From understanding co, az, ca all went 6-0 with rebels at their events.

holocron amd smugglers I thought was 80/20 imperials. I looked more at the command cards and and maps think it's more like 60/40. I think there are a few adjustments that can be made to close the gap a little more. In all the other missions 50/50. I think it's 60/40 imperial high act vs rebel blast in all the missions. I think the gap has to do more with missions and a new game vs a true broken piece.

Both ca and az winners will be on the podcast so we can hear what they say,

During wotc minis in 2010 there was a broken map and a squad that had crazy speed that everyone was playing. Pretty much if you lost the map roll you lost the game. I still brought my gungans because it was the best counter for me outside of playing a mirror and I think that's the kind of meta we have right now.

It's very limited but if you don't want to play a mirror it's rebel blast or vader/rgc. That's kind of how it was in 2010 but since the game was out longer their were a few options but not many. Holocron/smugglers is the teth map to a point.

If the Officer is so broken why did CA get 14 and Rebels won. AZ got 16 and Rebels won. Rebels won at Chicago with only 8 but I think they could of done pretty well if R. was not out of town with his buddies which would of gave us 16?

/facepalm Okay, that pretty much takes us full circle doesn't it?

Edit: Johnny, sometimes I wonder if your goal in life is to make me quit talking about IA completely.

You asked for 60/40. 6/14 (assuming the regionals thread is accurate) is almost 43%. We've gone beyond the circle at this point, so what else do you want?

It's not up todate co(13) az (16)won with rebels today and ca(14)won with rebels.I am just trying to show bitter that there are facts about the rebels now and more than a 6-8 person tournament won.