This thought randomly occurred to me today, and since it did, it strikes that "Well, duh, that's obvious". Not sure why this didn't occur to me before, but it sure seems like point trimming for initiative is a pretty clear indicator of an imbalance, especially when we start to see bids in the 96 range (and below).

I submit for your thoughts:

96 point swarms in Wave 2/3 meta

86 point Phantoms

96 point U-Boats

Now, I've not played in a tournament in months, so I don't have an axe to grind here against U-Boats (though generically speaking, I tend to think alpha strike and spammy lists are a problem for non-tournament play and not such a problem for tournament play). I don't want to get into a protracted discussion about how to beat them or how I'm just weak-sauce and need to learn to fly better (I'll openly admit that I am, and I do). What I'm interested in is the idea of initiative bid as THE metric for imbalance. There are others...how much does it win, how much does it make cut, does it win an above average once making the cut, etc. But I'm kind of leaning toward initiative bid as the clearest tell - at least in the case of running multiples of the same ship type.

When the decision becomes something like:

- My list, at 97 points, is good enough to take on all comers

- but if I could trim 1 more point, I could still do well against everyone

- and I would have an advantage in a mirror match

then I think that is an indicator that the list is under-costed. After all, isn't a player putting in at 96 another way of him silently voting "this list at 96 is as good or better than most 100 point lists". So in a way, initiative bids are just the collective wisdom advertising subconsciously that a ship is better than its competitors. And I tend to think that 96-97 is the line at which we begin to say "this is probably a little out of whack". Less than that, there is clearly a problem. More than that, there isn't really an issue.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't know that I agree. When you're looking at what amounts to minor situational upgrades on 2-3 ships or one consistently useful upgrade on one ship, I'm not sure that's a indicator of imbalance. What I think it's reflective of is certain builds really, really, need to move after or shoot before the opponent or they become spectacularly noncompetitive in general or against their mirror specifically.

UBoats vs Uboats, shooting second sucks big-time. Soontir vs Soontir, moving first sucks big time. Uboats at 96 or 100 vs Imp Aces at 96 or 100 doesn't play any different.

If there were 1pt upgrade that said 'For purposes of combat treat your Pilot Skill as 12' or 'For purposes of Activation, treat your pilot skill as 12' people would scream they were broken. A 1pt per ship upgrade that does the same thing only in a mirror match, not so much.

Sometimes you just can't get a significant improvement by spending more points with the upgrade slots remaining in your list. Also some ships benefit from having the initiative choice much more than others, or expect to run into a mirror match or otherwise matching pilot skill values often, so spending points to ensure you get that choice is the same or better as spending those points on more mildly useful but unnecessary upgrades.

Comparing total squadron point costs in general is not really a useful piece of data imo since "more points = more power" does not accurately reflect the design trends of the game.

Scouts are atleast 2 points undercosted, so it doesnt hurt as much to go below 100 for the init bid.

Especially with Boba and the importance of blocking the mirror match is often largely dependent on initative.

If you think 86 points phantom was an initiative bid. You have to relearn x wing.

Also, a 96 point u boat list and a 97 u boat list are not the same lists, with one having one less point. The former is clearly giving something away in order to take initiative and thats where you actually pay the paints for. Your list is not 96 points of u boat athat point , is it 96 points and 4 point premium of going first. Thats not an issue of imbalance, or subconcius thinking. It is a tactical decision.

Sometimes you just can't get a significant improvement by spending more points with the upgrade slots remaining in your list. Also some ships benefit from having the initiative choice much more than others, or expect to run into a mirror match or otherwise matching pilot skill values often, so spending points to ensure you get that choice is the same or better as spending those points on more mildly useful but unnecessary upgrades.

Comparing total squadron point costs in general is not really a useful piece of data imo since "more points = more power" does not accurately reflect the design trends of the game.

Sometimes...but in each of the cases I've mentioned though, there are clear "better" upgrades.

Take 86 pt Phantoms. They elected to leave out an entire ship because it was an MOV liability.

Take U-Boats. R4 Agro is clearly better than Overclocked...if you can afford it. You get dice modification with no stress.

And actually, more points is supposed to indicate more power. That is why we see ships with better statlines at higher costs, better abilities at higher costs, etc. Designers aren't perfect though. So when they miss, we start to see lower point lists that can compete with higher point lists, upgrades that get taken consistently above others, etc.

If you think 86 points phantom was an initiative bid. You have to relearn x wing.

Also, a 96 point u boat list and a 97 u boat list are not the same lists, with one having one less point. The former is clearly giving something away in order to take initiative and thats where you actually pay the paints for. Your list is not 96 points of u boat athat point , is it 96 points and 4 point premium of going first. Thats not an issue of imbalance, or subconcius thinking. It is a tactical decision.

Sorry, I used them as an example and was not specific. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a ******* idiot, and I do know that basically they filled everything they wanted to on 2 phantoms and decided another ship was a liability. It wasn't an initiative bid per se, but it is a useful data point...I shouldn't have said "initiative bid" but "significantly under-spending on lists for whatever reason". Thought I could get by without being nitpicked for once. Stupid mistake.

And yes, going to 96 on U-boats is a tactical decision. But that tactical decision is made possible by the fact that a 96 point list can compete very well with a number of 100 point lists. When you make the decision to not spend those points, you are effectively saying "I don't need the upgrades that could fit there to beat other lists as much as I need initiative for mirror matches", whether you intend to or not. Essentially, "These 96 points are as good as most 100 points". Hence, it is an unintended (not subconscious, again sloppy wording) statement that the list is under-costed.

Scouts are atleast 2 points undercosted, so it doesnt hurt as much to go below 100 for the init bid.

Especially with Boba and the importance of blocking the mirror match is often largely dependent on initative.

Right I get this, and it is kind of my point. The less it hurts to trim some upgrades off your list, the more likely the ships are under-costed. Every list has a breaking point where if you trim any more, it simply can't be competitive against the variety of lists in the meta anymore. For TIE swarms, it seemed to be about 96-97 points. For U-boats it appears about the same. For Scyks, it is 130.

It isn't 96 v 100. it's 96 and initiative vs 100. It's saying having initiative is the best upgrade for the points in a list. It is points spent on a situational modifier.

Edit: initiative is about the meta not the ship.

Scouts are atleast 2 points undercosted,

I assume you do have some kind of proof backing up such a factual statement?

To the OP, that's an interesting point, but I think initiative bid has more to do with the following 2 factors than imbalances:

1. Game mechanics that reward going last or first more than a 2,3 or 4 point upgrade rewards you. Going last if you arc dodge etc.

2. Filling up ships. Sometimes you gave already put everything you want on a ship and you're a few points under. Whatever you might still be able to squeeze in the list might not be worth it compared to the benefits of initiative. This IMO is caused by a lack of useful 1-2 point upgrades for all ships/factions.

PS bids start to occur when many players play the same PS rating (making controlling the initiative important). This can happen because:

- PS9 is always popular (and there are now many ships is that bracket)

- Many players are toying around with the new toys of a wave (which will put a PS bracket into the spotlight)

- Other PS brackets still need a tweek to become popular.

- Sometimes, some good combos have simply not caught on (Valen, for example, is rarely used despite being an interesting option)

- And yes, sometimes an imbalance favors a new combo that was recently introduced.

Not too long ago, you could not enter a competition without tripping over its fare share of IG-88. Now, they are rarer, but still competitive if you put the time into learning how to use them properly. The same could be said for tie swarms (they require extra work).

It isn't 96 v 100. it's 96 and initiative vs 100. It's saying having initiative is the best upgrade for the points in a list. It is points spent on a situational modifier.

Edit: initiative is about the meta not the ship.

Not precisely.

Against Palp Aces, it is 96 vs 100. The initiative means nothing. Against a swarm it means nothing. Against Bro-bots it is nothing. What allows you to come in at 96 against these lists, and claim that situational upgrade against the mirror, is that the list can compete with "everything else" at 96. If it can compete against everything else at 95, people will start bringing it at 95. And then people will try 94. Eventually, you'll reach a floor where it just becomes non-competitive against "everything else" to go any lower. You win the mirror but can't beat other lists. And that is essentially what I am throwing out. The lower a list can go points-wise before becoming un-viable against "everything else" in order to win the mirror, the more imbalanced that combination is.

Believe me people, I get that the initiative and moving first is EXTREMELY important for U-Boats and Swarms, and it is a logical choice to be made to go lower. My point is that people must balance competing vs the mirror against competing vs "everything else". They make a choice as to how low will still be competitive vs "everything else" in order to win initiative. The lower that "floor" is, the more imbalanced the ships probably are.

Sometimes it's true. If initiative bids get nutty low there are probably a lot of mirror matches(anticipated, not necessarily real) and probably some squads that are just really, really good.

But... I always have to have a large bid on Corran because there are quite a few ps8 ships that can be a real nightmare. It's not any one ship, it's just that my ships depends so much on getting out from under Lockdown's guns.

It isn't 96 v 100. it's 96 and initiative vs 100. It's saying having initiative is the best upgrade for the points in a list. It is points spent on a situational modifier.

Edit: initiative is about the meta not the ship.

Not precisely.

Against Palp Aces, it is 96 vs 100. The initiative means nothing. Against a swarm it means nothing. Against Bro-bots it is nothing. What allows you to come in at 96 against these lists, and claim that situational upgrade against the mirror, is that the list can compete with "everything else" at 96. If it can compete against everything else at 95, people will start bringing it at 95. And then people will try 94. Eventually, you'll reach a floor where it just becomes non-competitive against "everything else" to go any lower. You win the mirror but can't beat other lists. And that is essentially what I am throwing out. The lower a list can go points-wise before becoming un-viable against "everything else" in order to win the mirror, the more imbalanced that combination is.

Believe me people, I get that the initiative and moving first is EXTREMELY important for U-Boats and Swarms, and it is a logical choice to be made to go lower. My point is that people must balance competing vs the mirror against competing vs "everything else". They make a choice as to how low will still be competitive vs "everything else". The lower that "floor" is, the more imbalanced the ships probably are.

I understand the point you are making, I don't think it's wrong, but I don't think it's really correct either. Consider Uboats, in a mirror match, the player that moves and shoots first has a very large advantage. So large, that it can be extremely difficult when moving second. So, Uboat players make bids to secure moving and shooting first. By doing so they are omitting upgrades that will help them in non mirror matches. So, the decision becomes, which is the harder path? Can I beat the palp aces/Brobots/Dash lists if I downgrade my R4 Agromechs to Overclocked R4s, or leave 4LOM crew off the list, or use only Plasma torpedoes instead of any Proton torpedoes. Are those omitted upgrades essential to beat the non mirror matches? Is it harder to beat the mirror without the bid, or to beat the rest of the field without the extra upgrades? You choose the easier path.

I think you need to consider an init bid as an upgrade, which you aren't doing. I used to play a 3 Awing list at 96 points. I was at 96 points because, while a shield upgrade on Tycho would have been nice, the 4 points spent were better served to make sure Jake and his Prockets moved after Fel/Whisper. I chose the "move last" upgrade over the shield upgrade. The reason some don't see init as a straight upgrade is because it's a variable cost, and it's an abstracted upgrade, there is no card. If there was a squad upgrade that costed 5 points that ensured you get to choose init, lists that required init would pay the 5 points. But, that can't exist because both players could spend on that upgrade, so players have to make a viariably costed play on getting that "initiative" upgrade.

It's not about list strength, it's about how some players value initiative and some look at it like buying any other upgrade.

I like this train of thought. I would hesitate to say emphatically that it is THE indicator of ship imbalance (or list imbalance), but I think it's fair to look at it as a possible red flag.

In the case of scouts, if people are cutting points to gain an advantage against the mirror match, then there's a reasonable expectation of a mirror match occurring. That doesn't happen with bad ships. Nobody takes 5 scycks and decides to drop one to an ion canon so they can have a 99 point list in case they come across a mirror match.

This isn't proof positive of an issue, but the winner of Hoth ran one JM5K without extra munitions, just to gain an advantage. Normally making torpedoes less cost-effective won't help your chances of winning. But the platform is so cost effective that mirror match advantage was worth it.

Obviously, the 86 point double phantom lost is the most extreme example. It's there that the power of pre-nerf phantom is highlighted. Part of that choice is an extreme initiative bid, and part is MOV protection. The point still remains that a player could not spend 14 of their points but the ships were so good, that they'd win anyway. So nitpicking whether or not counts as am initiative bid misses the point.

It isn't 96 v 100. it's 96 and initiative vs 100. It's saying having initiative is the best upgrade for the points in a list. It is points spent on a situational modifier.

Edit: initiative is about the meta not the ship.

Not precisely.

Against Palp Aces, it is 96 vs 100. The initiative means nothing. Against a swarm it means nothing. Against Bro-bots it is nothing. What allows you to come in at 96 against these lists, and claim that situational upgrade against the mirror, is that the list can compete with "everything else" at 96. If it can compete against everything else at 95, people will start bringing it at 95. And then people will try 94. Eventually, you'll reach a floor where it just becomes non-competitive against "everything else" to go any lower. You win the mirror but can't beat other lists. And that is essentially what I am throwing out. The lower a list can go points-wise before becoming un-viable against "everything else" in order to win the mirror, the more imbalanced that combination is.

Believe me people, I get that the initiative and moving first is EXTREMELY important for U-Boats and Swarms, and it is a logical choice to be made to go lower. My point is that people must balance competing vs the mirror against competing vs "everything else". They make a choice as to how low will still be competitive vs "everything else" in order to win initiative. The lower that "floor" is, the more imbalanced the ships probably are.

Competitive games are not just vs one opponent. You need to win many games. I can lose to [meta list] if i win agains the other match ups. If the meta favors a different list that doesnt need an initiative bid, people wont.

I think initiative bidding is more of an indicator of what the meta looks like and that itself is a better view of balance. If jm5k lists feel the need to cut corners to get a leg up on the mirror then they must be expecting the mirror a lot, otherwise they have things they could spend those points on. Expecting the mirror often enough to forgo upgrades indicated the mirror match is very very common and that itself indicates that maybe the list is too strong just because of popularity. It's all an inexact science though because a list could be popular due to being a counter rather than a specific meta destroyer itself.

I sense horrible amout of JM Hype coming!

It isn't 96 v 100. it's 96 and initiative vs 100. It's saying having initiative is the best upgrade for the points in a list. It is points spent on a situational modifier.

Edit: initiative is about the meta not the ship.

Not precisely.

Against Palp Aces, it is 96 vs 100. The initiative means nothing. Against a swarm it means nothing. Against Bro-bots it is nothing. What allows you to come in at 96 against these lists, and claim that situational upgrade against the mirror, is that the list can compete with "everything else" at 96. If it can compete against everything else at 95, people will start bringing it at 95. And then people will try 94. Eventually, you'll reach a floor where it just becomes non-competitive against "everything else" to go any lower. You win the mirror but can't beat other lists. And that is essentially what I am throwing out. The lower a list can go points-wise before becoming un-viable against "everything else" in order to win the mirror, the more imbalanced that combination is.

Believe me people, I get that the initiative and moving first is EXTREMELY important for U-Boats and Swarms, and it is a logical choice to be made to go lower. My point is that people must balance competing vs the mirror against competing vs "everything else". They make a choice as to how low will still be competitive vs "everything else". The lower that "floor" is, the more imbalanced the ships probably are.

I understand the point you are making, I don't think it's wrong, but I don't think it's really correct either. Consider Uboats, in a mirror match, the player that moves and shoots first has a very large advantage. So large, that it can be extremely difficult when moving second. So, Uboat players make bids to secure moving and shooting first. By doing so they are omitting upgrades that will help them in non mirror matches. So, the decision becomes, which is the harder path? Can I beat the palp aces/Brobots/Dash lists if I downgrade my R4 Agromechs to Overclocked R4s, or leave 4LOM crew off the list, or use only Plasma torpedoes instead of any Proton torpedoes. Are those omitted upgrades essential to beat the non mirror matches? Is it harder to beat the mirror without the bid, or to beat the rest of the field without the extra upgrades? You choose the easier path.

I think you need to consider an init bid as an upgrade, which you aren't doing. I used to play a 3 Awing list at 96 points. I was at 96 points because, while a shield upgrade on Tycho would have been nice, the 4 points spent were better served to make sure Jake and his Prockets moved after Fel/Whisper. I chose the "move last" upgrade over the shield upgrade. The reason some don't see init as a straight upgrade is because it's a variable cost, and it's an abstracted upgrade, there is no card. If there was a squad upgrade that costed 5 points that ensured you get to choose init, lists that required init would pay the 5 points. But, that can't exist because both players could spend on that upgrade, so players have to make a viariably costed play on getting that "initiative" upgrade.

It's not about list strength, it's about how some players value initiative and some look at it like buying any other upgrade.

You are preaching to the choir. I absolutely already view it as a variable point cost upgrade, so that really doesn't change my view.

As the only variably costed upgrade, and one that everyone takes in some form, it actually tells us something. If people are willing to spend more on it, it means two things, and it does mean both of these things - that initiative is important to the list and that the list can afford to spend points on that initiative. If it isn't important OR if the list can't afford it and remain competitive, then it simply isn't done (or doesn't work when it is). When people spend more on that initiative upgrade, it means, essentially, that it is important to their list AND that they feel they can spend more on it.

Nah, I disagree OP. It's not "my 96pt list > your 100pt list" as some have been saying. Not at all. Really, what you're saying is that "my list at 96 points + iniative > my list at 100 pts without initiative." It has nothing to do with whether or not your ships, whatever they may be, are balanced. It has everything to do with how important it is for your ships to move/shoot first (or second, as is sometimes the case).

Large initiative bids may be an indicator of a non-balanced game, but for different reasons than you stated.

It doesn't indicate that these ships are OP and undercosted, they indicate that winning or losing depends solely on moving last/first to the point where that's ALL that matters and it's worth trimming upgrades from your list.

Palp Aces dittos depend almost entirely upon moving after your opponent because of repositioning abilities.

If a PS 9 Wedge moves before a PS 9 Talonbane, it doesn't actually matter all that much. But a Soontir moving before another Soontir? The Soontir player that has to move first is at a significant disadvantage.

I think initiative bidding is more of an indicator of what the meta looks like and that itself is a better view of balance. If jm5k lists feel the need to cut corners to get a leg up on the mirror then they must be expecting the mirror a lot, otherwise they have things they could spend those points on. Expecting the mirror often enough to forgo upgrades indicated the mirror match is very very common and that itself indicates that maybe the list is too strong just because of popularity. It's all an inexact science though because a list could be popular due to being a counter rather than a specific meta destroyer itself.

It might also mean that initiative is way more important for a mirror than an upgrade is for other matchups. For example, if a JM15k player expects to see only one other JM15K list in the tournament, but knows that outcome will be heavily influenced by initiative, they may choose to make that bid to try and take chance out of that important matchup as much as possible. Even if the same player expects to see 3 Palp-Aces lists, they may think their list has tools and tactics to beat the aces, so they would put points into a single mirror match over 3 different matches.

I like this train of thought. I would hesitate to say emphatically that it is THE indicator of ship imbalance (or list imbalance), but I think it's fair to look at it as a possible red flag.

In the case of scouts, if people are cutting points to gain an advantage against the mirror match, then there's a reasonable expectation of a mirror match occurring. That doesn't happen with bad ships. Nobody takes 5 scycks and decides to drop one to an ion canon so they can have a 99 point list in case they come across a mirror match.

This isn't proof positive of an issue, but the winner of Hoth ran one JM5K without extra munitions, just to gain an advantage. Normally making torpedoes less cost-effective won't help your chances of winning. But the platform is so cost effective that mirror match advantage was worth it.

Obviously, the 86 point double phantom lost is the most extreme example. It's there that the power of pre-nerf phantom is highlighted. Part of that choice is an extreme initiative bid, and part is MOV protection. The point still remains that a player could not spend 14 of their points but the ships were so good, that they'd win anyway. So nitpicking whether or not counts as am initiative bid misses the point.

I ran my 97 point Jumpmaster list at Hoth to have the edge in the mirror. I struggled and debated long and hard about adding in more upgrades to help fight the aces and other non mirror matches I would face or shave more points to get a better bid in the mirror. But, in practicing the mirror, I concluded that it would be almost impossible to win the mirror without having initiative. So, the question was, could I beat the aces at 97 points? I decided that I could. With the init bid I had, I knew I could beat a mirror, and had a reasonable chance to beat aces and any other list I faced. Without the init bid, I knew I would lose to a mirror with an init bid and have a better chance against aces. Which would you take, the option with a solid matchup and a questionable matchup or the option with an impossible matchup and an even matchup? I chose the first option, and it served me well.

Initiative is a tricky thing, much like a PS bid. Sometimes it's clutch, and sometimes its a waste of points.

Competitive games are not just vs one opponent. You need to win many games. I can lose to [meta list] if i win agains the other match ups. If the meta favors a different list that doesnt need an initiative bid, people wont.

Gah! That is the point!

1. OP thing comes out.

2. Lots of people use OP ship, because it is OP.

3. Because lots of them out there, initiative becomes important

4. People spend as much on initiative as they can for the mirror, while still winning most matchups.

5. A floor is hit where you simply can't spend more on initiative for the mirror and the list somewhat settles.

In essence, if a ship or pilot is OP, it will often force the meta into a state where initiative becomes more important. If there aren't OP ships, then no particular setup repeats often enough, and initiative is less valuable. So saying "If the meta favors a different list that doesn't need an initiative bid, people wont." is kind of like saying "There are not OP ships in the meta". Because if there are OP ships, then the importance of Initiative (and PS for that matter) are greatly amplified by their higher than average use.

Having an initiative bid really doesn't mean much when it comes to individual ships and balance.

As repeatedly stated before there are times you build your squadron and and may happen to be short a point or two. Occasionally you have an upgrade slot that could be filled with those points but if you don't see what you could fill those with as being worth it then why bother? This may could be coming less of an issue as more upgrades become available but it certainly was a thing early in the game where none of the options to fill an open upgrade slot made any sense. Not filling in those points also means not giving your opponent as many points should he take a ship out.

The other thing is that occasionally you are "bidding" on initiative simply because how your squadron performs with/without initiative is important enough that you ARE buying that "initiative upgrade" instead of buying more tangible upgrades. Now an upgrade like Adaptability is almost like an initiative bid except that it only applies to a single ship and has some slightly different interactions with things; if you want to move last/shoot first you go +PS enabling you to "win" the ties but you go -PS to move first/shoot last although in all of these cases you happen to run into that other PS tier which means initiative changes acting order another +/- .5 effective PS.