1) FFG to address scoring properly. It's annoying that the terminology changes, "Gain" "Count as having" "Defeated" "Eliminated" etc.... Most of it makes sense but I'd prefer the "count as having" rule to be more like "control objective: gain x points, if you lose control of the objective, lose X points"

I'd just like the tournament doc to use terminology from the actual game. It keeps talking about "destroyed" models for example, when it clearly means "defeated". (IIRC - correct me if I'm wrong - "destroyed" is not a term found anywhere in the game rules). So why not just say "defeated" and make it easier for everyone?

I think this was too much pendulum swing, but I guess it's just tournament only...

Until a full FAQ comes out, casual skirmish at home and tournament skirmish are now very different.

I guess the argument is that in casual play you can use whatever rules you want to, including the tournament rules if you so choose. (After all, it's casual. There's no TO to tell you you're doing it wrong, because it's not a T!)

That said, it would indeed have been much clearer and easier if they'd changed the rules for the game in the game rules and added tournament rules in the tournament rules doc, which is what it's for.

They have now clarified what they mean (though strain tokens??? Seriously???) but the impression that I get of this whole debacle is of a change being rushed out without being properly thought through, without being considered, without anybody really asking for it, and without taking the time and care to make the change properly (i.e. in the right documents), let alone consider side effects (such as breaking Of No Importance). The rules are at least functional now, but I don't have particularly high hopes that they'll work to actually improve the game when the introduction of the change was such a mess.

They eventually errata'd Imperial Officers and that was good for the game, but they've otherwise been cautious about changing things on a whim. This one seems to have come out of nowhere with none of the same care or caution.

Wait but what about Snowtroopers or any other figures/cards that have a discrepancy like that? So Snowtroopers cost me 7 points to put in my list, but my opponent can only score 6 points from them?

Wait but what about Snowtroopers or any other figures/cards that have a discrepancy like that? So Snowtroopers cost me 7 points to put in my list, but my opponent can only score 6 points from them?

Yes.

It provides an additional consideration in making up your list.

Wait but what about Snowtroopers or any other figures/cards that have a discrepancy like that? So Snowtroopers cost me 7 points to put in my list, but my opponent can only score 6 points from them?

Yes.

It provides an additional consideration in making up your list.

OK. I imagine we won't ever see deployment cards with mismatched figure/deployment costs again then?

Not necessarily. I kinda like the idea that a group can be more or less expensive to have in your squad compared to what it is worth. Like Sabs for instance. With so many different things targeting Figure Cost now, I could see it used actively. A very resilient squad like wookies could be cheap to have in your squad (because they maybe don't do much besides being a lot of HPs) but give a fair amount of points per figure because they are so tough to kill, that just killing 1 should give you more than half the points.

Also, the deployment cost is still important for the campaign.

I think this was too much pendulum swing, but I guess it's just tournament only...

Until a full FAQ comes out, casual skirmish at home and tournament skirmish are now very different.

I guess the argument is that in casual play you can use whatever rules you want to, including the tournament rules if you so choose. (After all, it's casual. There's no TO to tell you you're doing it wrong, because it's not a T!)

That said, it would indeed have been much clearer and easier if they'd changed the rules for the game in the game rules and added tournament rules in the tournament rules doc, which is what it's for.

They have now clarified what they mean (though strain tokens??? Seriously???) but the impression that I get of this whole debacle is of a change being rushed out without being properly thought through, without being considered, without anybody really asking for it, and without taking the time and care to make the change properly (i.e. in the right documents), let alone consider side effects (such as breaking Of No Importance). The rules are at least functional now, but I don't have particularly high hopes that they'll work to actually improve the game when the introduction of the change was such a mess.

They eventually errata'd Imperial Officers and that was good for the game, but they've otherwise been cautious about changing things on a whim. This one seems to have come out of nowhere with none of the same care or caution.

So, I'm with you on being frustrated, but I doubt this game change was rushed or untested, just poorly handled in its delivery.

-ryanjamal

Makes most sense to me, I like it

Pretty certain this will take "reinforcement" out of the must-take cards from trooper spam lists

Heck, there might not even be a trooper spam list anymore. It takes away the point denial strategy: I'm being rewarded as soon as I kill your dudes, I really don't care if you run that last trooper all the way back there

Not only that, it makes playing troopers with a figure cost of 4 more viable, which is also good for the meta.

-ryanjamal

Can you elaborate ?

-ryanjamal

I'd be willing to bet that the issue was caused by OP. Such things have happened to X wing in the past and the designers have to swoop in and correct the problem. I'm certain a big change lime this was playtested thoroughly and that they were prepared to make the changes, the issue is that it's another department that is superior to the designers who writes the documentation. I would also bet that they deliberately did not alter the official rulebook. That's a messy thing to change. Writing errata for cards can cause problems but it was definitely a better idea to leave the rulebook alone and let this apply to the tournament rules. It's easy enough to just tell a new player that it works this way in skirmish now and refer them to the rules document, just like we do whenever we introduce a new player to any FFG competitive game.

Probably still not handled perfectly, but the intent is now clear.

I just wish FFG would update all errata when they release a new wave. They have an idea of how they want the card to work, just let us know. If they need to have future change I'm fine with that. But going months with questions of card interactions is ridiculous.

I think anything that buffs unique figures is a good thing.

Troopers are still good, just not stupidly unbalanced.

Welcome to POINTS-FOR-KILLS!

FFG has restored order to the galaxy.

FFG has brought balance to the Force.

I'm VERY happy with this new points-for-kills rule, and I've played a lot of trooper-heavy builds in competition!

I should point out that this method of scoring will be a big deal...not just in terms of the meta, but also in the actual outcomes of games.

As a case-in-point from one of my Regional games this past weekend, my opponent was up 33-26 going into the last round...except this is how the figures-on-the-board and figure-kills looked:

My opponent's remaining groups:

--eStormtrooper group #1: 3 figures on the board (0 defeated)

--eStormtrooper group #2: 1 figure on the board, and Reinforcements used twice during the match (4 had been defeated = 12 VPs)

--eJet Trooper group w TargettingComputer: 1 figure on the board (1 had been defeated = 4 VPs)

--rOfficer: 1 on the board (sleeping on the job beside a terminal)

My remaining groups:

--Gideon w Mission: 1 on the board

--C3P0: 1 on the board

--eRangers: 2 figures on the board (1 defeated = 4 VPs)

Using the normal/traditional scoring: The score was 26-33 for him at this point, and he ended up winning the game.

Using the points-for-kills scoring: The score would've been 42-37 for me (+16 for me, and +4 for him).

And by the way, it was a great game, super close! One of the best games I've played in a long time, actually! We were talking about it afterward, and about how much we had both improved as players as a result of the game.

Regardless, my point is that this simple scoring rule alteration will not just change what gets used in matches, but it will actually change the results of matches themselves.

It's going to take a lot of the gamey-ness out of the process. I'm looking forward to it.

In a battle game, soldiers running away from the battle seems counterintuitive

It's always a more enjoyable experience when players get to roll dice and interact with one another.

Hiding or running away from interaction and being rewarded for cowardice is a death knell for a game.

One player may be "happy" because they won, but the other player is likely frustrated.

FFG taking away the reward for a negative play experience is applaudable.

Now, if we could shave two points off of Vader, Chewie, Han & Boba Fett I would be ecstatic.

In a battle game, soldiers running away from the battle seems counterintuitive

It's always a more enjoyable experience when players get to roll dice and interact with one another.

Hiding or running away from interaction and being rewarded for cowardice is a death knell for a game.

One player may be "happy" because they won, but the other player is likely frustrated.

FFG taking away the reward for a negative play experience is applaudable.

Now, if we could shave two points off of Vader, Chewie, Han & Boba Fett I would be ecstatic.

Don't forget General Weiss and AT-ST

I've always seen IA as chess with dice. The strategy about what to move, when and where is super important. You don't run your queen to the other side of the board by herself in chess either.
I don't like rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

If I can win a game without rolling dice, eg. through smart and strategic play, then that's a well designed game. Multiple ways to win is what adds depth to a game. Sure, delaying tactics can be "unfun" but it also promotes the opposition into reacting.

This game is at it's best when both players try to out think each other. When one player does something sneaky, the other one reacts. If I run away with something, the opponent has to make a tough choice to chase the points or not... they have to look a few activations or turns ahead and see what they can achieve otherwise. Maybe they got some cards up their sleeve to chase and catch my cowardly figure. Maybe they've calculated that a certain combo with objectives is all they need...

To me, a game gets boring in two ways....

Either I can predict fairly well what my opponent will do, and despite my actions to counter him, he'll continue do to it because he refuses to change up his game plan.

or

I just have a better list or a better match up and apart from some huge swing in dice luck, my opponent is going to struggle all game. That's not fun either. That's common with new players or those who pick "sub-par" lists.

I don't like that some list or units are just flat out weak but that's reality and will always be the case in competitive play.

Also, the deployment cost is still important for the campaign.

We could be seeing more campaign/skirmish only cards then, although probably not as FF seems really reluctant to print any more deployment cards than it absolutely has to.

I've always seen IA as chess with dice. The strategy about what to move, when and where is super important. You don't run your queen to the other side of the board by herself in chess either.

I don't like rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

If I can win a game without rolling dice, eg. through smart and strategic play, then that's a well designed game. Multiple ways to win is what adds depth to a game. Sure, delaying tactics can be "unfun" but it also promotes the opposition into reacting.

This game is at it's best when both players try to out think each other. When one player does something sneaky, the other one reacts. If I run away with something, the opponent has to make a tough choice to chase the points or not... they have to look a few activations or turns ahead and see what they can achieve otherwise. Maybe they got some cards up their sleeve to chase and catch my cowardly figure. Maybe they've calculated that a certain combo with objectives is all they need...

To me, a game gets boring in two ways....

Either I can predict fairly well what my opponent will do, and despite my actions to counter him, he'll continue do to it because he refuses to change up his game plan.

or

I just have a better list or a better match up and apart from some huge swing in dice luck, my opponent is going to struggle all game. That's not fun either. That's common with new players or those who pick "sub-par" lists.

I don't like that some list or units are just flat out weak but that's reality and will always be the case in competitive play.

I am relatively new to IA. I have played miniature games at a very high level for a very long time.

Running away to deny points to your opponent by using the clock and game design that is rewarding of that type of behavior is not a good long term strategy for a game. It just creates a negative environment that really is not fun.

What happens when people go to a tournament and don't have fun? They typically find something that is fun and rewards an interactive play environment.

I don't know too many people that want to go to a tournament and sit through 12 hours of clock grinding.

I am happy FFG is rewarding Players that are more aggressive or if they are running a control style/denial type game that it remains interactive.

Will there be less "trooper spam" lists, maybe. I'm here to play Star Wars, I want to see characters I know on the board across from me and I want to play with my childhood heroes. It's fine having some chaff, but frankly I can play chaff in any Universe or game system, it doesn't really make it Star Wars. Playing with more Unique characters with different abilities will add more variety and should cut down on the overall health and activations in lists.

That means games will take less time and be faster & more furious. That's really good news, because slow, plodding games lose their luster quickly.

That depends what you want from a game.

It's like comparing checkers to chess. Both have some strategy and both can be played to fairly high competitive level. But they are completely different beasts. Checkers is your "faster & more furious" game. Chess is the slower more "thinking' game. Yes you can play chess fast as well but that's almost a completely different skill set.

I've played quite a few regionals now over the last two years and I have to say I've never had a problem with people running away and points denial. That's where the mission objectives become important. That's what drives the conflict. That's what pushes the two armies towards each other. In my opinion, that's how it should work.

I've said it multiple times that I think these rule changes risk removing some elements of strategy from the game. Just because you don't like "running away", doesn't mean everyone does.
I don't call it running away. I call it point denial at worst, and good positioning at best.

I don't have to run to the far corner of the map to deny points. I can do so with clever positioning of other units or creating threat/pressure elsewhere and forcing tough choices for my opponent. That element is diminished now because everything is worth points and it's much easier/quicker to score them.

If this game becomes 40K... turn up and roll dice. Then my interest in it will severely diminish. The depth is what I like about it. In some ways, the rule change has "simplified things". That's fine for entry level and casual play, but it's not why I got so deep into the competitive side.

Competitive game has and always will put setting/fluff/flavor second. If you want to just play Han and Chewie then stick to campaign or casual play. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't go around saying everything has to change because it doesn't fit what your view of a star wars strategy game should be.

If this game becomes 40K... turn up and roll dice. Then my interest in it will severely diminish.

!!!

I agree, that this would be bad, but I don't see that happening. We just tested the new rules. There still is point denial, positioning etc. It's just on the figure level now and not on the squad level anymore. Actually, in my opinion, you need more skill to do it now, not less.

I really don't mind point denial strategies, because of course you don't want to just give away VP's.

Running a bunch of groups that don't have to have unit cohesion and then hiding with the last model in the unit is gamey.

I'm glad they changed this mechanic. I think an added bonus will be to see more unique characters with fun abilities in the competitive scene.

I think it adds more "in game flavor" than spamming a bunch of vanilla units.

Also, seeing recognizable icons will make it more attractive for getting new players into the game.

Also, seeing recognizable icons will make it more attractive for getting new players into the game.

What's more iconic than Stormtroopers!?

I've always seen IA as chess with dice. The strategy about what to move, when and where is super important. You don't run your queen to the other side of the board by herself in chess either.

I completely agree. I'm not for a moment knee-jerk suggesting the new rule ruins the game (not even played one game with it yet) but the option to hold back troops to keep them safe is a viable tactic, and perfectly verisimilitudinous.

Besides, most games are decided by the mission objectives. I've played a lot of games of IA and never once got bored because my opponent ran away to save VPs. If he did, hey look! He's just gifted me all the objectives. The "problem" that people are complaining about is one I've never seen, and can't imagine happening given the objective-driven, time-limited nature of the missions.

Also, seeing recognizable icons will make it more attractive for getting new players into the game.

What's more iconic than Stormtroopers!?

I've always seen IA as chess with dice. The strategy about what to move, when and where is super important. You don't run your queen to the other side of the board by herself in chess either.

I completely agree. I'm not for a moment knee-jerk suggesting the new rule ruins the game (not even played one game with it yet) but the option to hold back troops to keep them safe is a viable tactic, and perfectly verisimilitudinous.

Besides, most games are decided by the mission objectives. I've played a lot of games of IA and never once got bored because my opponent ran away to save VPs. If he did, hey look! He's just gifted me all the objectives. The "problem" that people are complaining about is one I've never seen, and can't imagine happening given the objective-driven, time-limited nature of the missions.

-ryanjamal