5 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

What were the lists in the top8 however? Let's go by the same rules as the Regionals Data discussions, where I got bashed over and over for only talking about top4 and winners.

Though, I saw that too, I'm very interested in learning how they felt fighting 5+ activations.

Ok thats fair. Honestly I was shocked by that table. I've run two ships against five and its pretty unforgiving.

12 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Another option is this upgrade:
Temporal Coordinator
Large ship only
Crew 7 pts
You may exhaust this card instead of activating a ship.

Not unique. But at 7 pts, you're going to have a hard time wanting it over Tua, IO and SFO.
Large ship only, so only works for fleets with large ships in them.

This is an interesting way to do it.

Though if I could choose a different slot (bow-chick-bow-wow) I'd think it'd be more balanced if it was "support teams or weapons teams"

This would make it a harder choice as ISDs would have to give up gunnery teams or OE, which are widely used from what I understand, and it would prevent mc80 homeone from taking Engineering teams or engine techs,

Meaning the Liberty is only lightly effected


And the only reason I'd make those changes is the officer slot doesn't force the big christmas tree large ships to lose too much, but offers it an option to negate an important mechanic. May be slightly OP if Avenger can wait and still Gunnery teams all the little ships.

7 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This is an interesting way to do it.

Though if I could choose a different slot (bow-chick-bow-wow) I'd think it'd be more balanced if it was "support teams or weapons teams"

This would make it a harder choice as ISDs would have to give up gunnery teams or OE, which are widely used from what I understand, and it would prevent mc80 homeone from taking Engineering teams or engine techs,

Meaning the Liberty is only lightly effected


And the only reason I'd make those changes is the officer slot doesn't force the big christmas tree large ships to lose too much, but offers it an option to negate an important mechanic. May be slightly OP if Avenger can wait and still Gunnery teams all the little ships.

Nah. I think it needs to be available for all large ships. In whatever quantity they "want". 2 ISD 1 gozanti with 2 Temporals?

Also, crew is a powerful powerful slot. The opportunity cost of Temporal is really impactful. You want SFO? Sorry. You wanted IO or Tua? Sorry.

You say you've got flotilla problems / well I'm sorry for you son / I've got 99 problems / but accuracy ain't one.

Back to the OT... I like the idea of no commanders on a flotilla and the concept of them not counting as a ship for victory conditions

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Nah. I think it needs to be available for all large ships. In whatever quantity they "want". 2 ISD 1 gozanti with 2 Temporals?

Also, crew is a powerful powerful slot. The opportunity cost of Temporal is really impactful. You want SFO? Sorry. You wanted IO or Tua? Sorry.

Sorry, I meant as in both lol. As in you can either equip it to support or weapons teams slots... meaning, of course, that all current large size ships can use it.

Here's why I say officers may not be important enough

My current 2 ISD build uses:

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Admiral Screed ( 26 points)
- Avenger ( 5 points)
- Captain Needa ( 2 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- Turbolaser Reroute Circuits ( 7 points)
- SW 7 Ion Batteries ( 5 points)
= 179 total ship cost

Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- Overload Pulse ( 8 points)
= 142 total ship cost

On my flagship, Needa is important, as his loss would mean a potential of 4 damage over two shots.... However if I had to lose gunnery teams instead I'd be looking at anywhere from 5-14 damage lost. Making my primary gunner much less effective.

If it was an officer upgrade, I would merely take it on the ISD with nothing in that slot.... the way I built this fleet your version would put me at 5 activations and still leave a bid over 10 points with two ships that can hit for 12-13 damage per shot

Just my thought process, I'd lose any officer in a heartbeat to stall and still be able to shoot twice out the front with an ISD lol

You'd definitely benefit from 1 point SFO on the 2nd ship. In the current game state. So, you have a suboptimal build imo. Really atm, since you ache nothing there, SFO at 1 point is a no brainer take.
And in this case, your 2nd ISD gains the 7pt Temporal Coordinator. That's pretty decent. But the other ISD has Needa which is competing for the slot. Also, you're not using Agent Kallus, who is great for 3 points in a pinch.

51 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I think Cal's idea is a wonderful example of outside the box problem solving but I think it would create as many issues as it solved. Prefer the seven point upgrade card, but I was more on board with the idea that activations were an issue before the 4 total ship final table.

I'm not sure what problems you think it might introduce, but would be interested in hearing your thoughts. The seven point upgrade is interesting. It might be worth mentioning that those of us (Reinholt, WuFame, etc) that have been on the side of being out activated is a problem are saying so not because we can't win, but it is because we are high-skill players that completely obliterate people of equivalent skill that we out-activate, and it feels unfair to our opponents.

Ask yourself: What is more advantageous? Having spent one less point on your list, or having one more activation? The idea of initiative is it is supposed to offer something to the player at a disadvantage, and first-last activation is so strong that people were bidding 40 some odd points on it. That, to me, is very telling.

That's exactly it. If any "new" player accidentally brings a list with less than 5 activations to our meta, he has 0 hope of winning a single game ever.

A player of high skill can overcome and win with less activations, as is seen, but rarely is that the case. The skill ceiling required to get there is very high.

16 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

You'd definitely benefit from 1 point SFO on the 2nd ship. In the current game state. So, you have a suboptimal build imo. Really atm, since you ache nothing there, SFO at 1 point is a no brainer take.
And in this case, your 2nd ISD gains the 7pt Temporal Coordinator. That's pretty decent. But the other ISD has Needa which is competing for the slot. Also, you're not using Agent Kallus, who is great for 3 points in a pinch.

Sub-optimal?

Yeah, I disagree.

Completely.

It's not generic. I didn't spread my upgrades thin to cover lots of functions. I specialized. And it's optimal at its specialty. It guarantees damage. And I won't claim to be the best player here, I've seen what some of these folks can do, but I give people a run for their money with this build.

As for those upgrades, meh.

Throwing SFO on something just in case is planning for failure, and since even 1 point can be the difference between winning a bid or losing, which is definitely the more important battle in my mind, I'd rather depend on my ability to not run into obstacles. And if there's a fighter or fighters that I'm wasting a shot from my ISD on, then I have already failed. Especially if it's Avenger. Kallus is planning for failure in my book, e specially if the ship isn't designed to be anti fighter. anyways this fleet loves hunting and killing carriers, Rhymerballs tend to be the only fighter mobs that cause me tons of trouble.

The only officer I'd contest should be on that ISD is Intel Officer, as damage control officers have made contains much more effective against PTs.

All of that said, getting back to the point I was trying to convey, there's no way Agent Kallus, Intel officer, Skilled First Officer, Tua, or even Needa in my case, would be more valuable than being able shoot twice out the front of an ISD II. ISDs are kill machines

Which is is my point.

Losing an officer to stall is way too good a deal on a machine that can dish 26 damage an activation.

All I'm really trying to say is this:

if activations are how small ships survive against big ships, then handing a large ship a cheap low sacrifice activation without cutting its immense firepower is gonna break the hell out of the game. Lol

2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Another option is this upgrade:

Temporal Coordinator
Large ship only
Crew 7 pts
You may exhaust this card instead of activating a ship.

Not unique. But at 7 pts, you're going to have a hard time wanting it over Tua, IO and SFO.

Another downside to that, of course, is that in tying it to a ship...when that ship dies, you lose not one, but two activations.

Not sure I mind the concept , though. I dunno, maybe have a new squadron keyword and use it with new shuttle pilots? "During the ship phase, you may toggle the activation slider of this squadron instead of activating a ship".

Quote

Large ship only, so only works for fleets with large ships in them. Sorry medium ships.

Oh, I see how it is. More haterade for the VSD, eh?

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

Another downside to that, of course, is that in tying it to a ship...when that ship dies, you lose not one, but two activations.

Not sure I mind the concept , though. I dunno, maybe have a new squadron keyword and use it with new shuttle pilots? "During the ship phase, you may toggle the activation slider of this squadron instead of activating a ship".

Oh, I see how it is. More haterade for the VSD, eh?

Yknow, I hadn't thought of that when the ISD goes down. Good point. Lol.

Hahahaha. I've been trying to run 2 and 3 VSD lists. =3. Nah. Its just that this is meant to be a targeted fix. I don't think other med ships really need it. Though I dunno. You can definitely feel the fragility of medium ships nowadays. Especially vs heavy alpha strikes of squadrons or Ackbar style firepower. I believe a full squadron attack currently brings a VSD or a Interdictor from full to 3 hull.

5 hours ago, Caldias said:

I'm not sure what problems you think it might introduce, but would be interested in hearing your thoughts. The seven point upgrade is interesting. It might be worth mentioning that those of us (Reinholt, WuFame, etc) that have been on the side of being out activated is a problem are saying so not because we can't win, but it is because we are high-skill players that completely obliterate people of equivalent skill that we out-activate, and it feels unfair to our opponents.

Ask yourself: What is more advantageous? Having spent one less point on your list, or having one more activation? The idea of initiative is it is supposed to offer something to the player at a disadvantage, and first-last activation is so strong that people were bidding 40 some odd points on it. That, to me, is very telling.

I believethe ability to build for first/last was a key component in the design process for pretty much every ship that throws black dice, sans perhaps demolisher. Certainly for ships like the raider and the mc30 the complete inability to build for a last/first is a vicious nerf, and probably makes them overcosted. Certainly they would still be playable, but I hypothesize that their impact would be much less than they are now.

I feel that the lack of this threat to keep folks honest would also shift the meta hard towards the red dice gunline, which imo is fine if its one viable option and is awful if it becomes the prevailing option, especially since one faction is way way better at it. I think it badly hamstrings non-ram swarm fleets, which I personally enjoy playing. I think it significantly hurts first player advantage, which is a major issue since all the objectives were designed around the concept that first player is a very real advantage. I also think it makes Rieekan stronger and no one needs that.

I hope that didn't come off as dismissive. I thought it was a creative approach to address what folks clearly feel is an issue, although I personally think the issue would be best addressed in further releases through new options. As are most issues.

1 hour ago, Madaghmire said:

I believethe ability to build for first/last was a key component in the design process for pretty much every ship that throws black dice, sans perhaps demolisher. Certainly for ships like the raider and the mc30 the complete inability to build for a last/first is a vicious nerf, and probably makes them overcosted. Certainly they would still be playable, but I hypothesize that their impact would be much less than they are now.

I feel that the lack of this threat to keep folks honest would also shift the meta hard towards the red dice gunline, which imo is fine if its one viable option and is awful if it becomes the prevailing option, especially since one faction is way way better at it. I think it badly hamstrings non-ram swarm fleets, which I personally enjoy playing. I think it significantly hurts first player advantage, which is a major issue since all the objectives were designed around the concept that first player is a very real advantage. I also think it makes Rieekan stronger and no one needs that.

I hope that didn't come off as dismissive. I thought it was a creative approach to address what folks clearly feel is an issue, although I personally think the issue would be best addressed in further releases through new options. As are most issues.

I guess in my experience with black dice ships you don't need first-last to preform well, and having it just makes them ridiculously effective, maybe overly so.

I think first player already has a tremendous advantage without having both last and first activation. First activation lets you move things to safety, for instance, or alpha something to death before it has a chance to go. The only games that seemed fair to me in this wave were ones where I had an even number of activations as my opponent. The ones that I out-activate, I nearly always steamroll them, and that, to me, sends a certain message.

Flotillas somewhat exacerbated this in that if you went max squadrons, you had less activations, for the most part. Now you can have six activation fleets with max squadrons, which is pretty nuts, and I've seen those kinds of fleets wreck face.

Anyway, still love the game. I am definitely not hating on it, but do think this is an interesting problem that might not have a clear answer. Who knows, maybe whatever FFG is working on with our tentative FAQ will be even smarter than whatever us jabronis came up with.

Caldias, are you blaming the game for your gaming partner having unequal skill levels?

Not sure the game can do anything about that. Perhaps try teaching your partner instead.

I don't think that activation advantage is anywhere near a auto win it's a case or playing to your lists strengths, I've moved from playing non stop 5 ship lists down to 4s and even 3s with no great sense of dreed that I will be out activated as the new lists I ran are not all about that first last strategy, they don't mind going frist but shine as second player. I don't think there is any real problem with the way the game sits other than people always look for a reason why they are not doing as well as they believe they should.

P.S in regards to Balance..... it's a myth.... but this game gives it a good go

Wait! Does not this activation advantage exist since the Core?

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Wait! Does not this activation advantage exist since the Core?

yes, but there is squad advantage for imps to balance the 2 to 1 on ships

45 minutes ago, Visovics said:

yes, but there is squad advantage for imps to balance the 2 to 1 on ships

It balanced the deployment not the activation.

6 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Caldias, are you blaming the game for your gaming partner having unequal skill levels?

Not sure the game can do anything about that. Perhaps try teaching your partner instead.

As one of the people that frequently play Caldias, I can attest to his statement of lower activations will lose. When I ran 4 activations against his 6, I lost 90% of the time. And trust me, I tried for several months. I just couldn't get the edge I needed. I'm running my Dual Glad fleet now with 6 activations, and it can go toe-to-toe with his MC30 swarm because I have a larger bid, and we have the same amount of activations.

If that's not enough, we also play the winner of the MI Regionals, and WuFame who has proven himself several times to be a high caliber player. We have several other players too who are also quite skilled.

11 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

I believe the ability to build for first/last was a key component in the design process for pretty much every ship that throws black dice, sans perhaps demolisher. Certainly for ships like the raider and the mc30 the complete inability to build for a last/first is a vicious nerf, and probably makes them overcosted.

I'm not convinced about that. At least as far as the raider is concerned, it's perfectly playable without last-first ability, but it does require an activation parity.

16 hours ago, Caldias said:

...being out activated is a problem are saying so not because we can't win, but it is because we are high-skill players that completely obliterate people of equivalent skill that we out-activate, and it feels unfair to our opponents.

6 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Caldias, are you blaming the game for your gaming partner having unequal skill levels?

Not sure the game can do anything about that. Perhaps try teaching your partner instead.

15 minutes ago, pt106 said:

I'm not convinced about that. At least as far as the raider is concerned, it's perfectly playable without last-first ability, but it does require an activation parity.

I did caveat it all remains playable...in the first sentence after the cut. The raider certainly suffers less than the mc30, or a non-demo glad.

My other points are conceded?

9 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I did caveat it all remains playable...in the first sentence after the cut. The raider certainly suffers less than the mc30, or a non-demo glad.

My other points are conceded?

Nope. I probably wasn't clear - I'm not convinced that the ability to do first/last is a key for black dice ships and they're overcosted if this ability is lost. As I only have a significant experience with a Raider (and usually played it as a second player) I used that as a counterpoint. In my mind designing ships to be used for first-last is something that is no healthy for the game (as it triggers bid wars with ridiculous bid amounts) so I don't think that the inability to do first/last will significantly nerf any of those ships.

1 minute ago, pt106 said:

Nope. I probably wasn't clear - I'm not convinced that the ability to do first/last is a key for black dice ships and they're overcosted if this ability is lost. As I only have a significant experience with a Raider (and usually played it as a second player) I used that as a counterpoint. In my mind designing ships to be used for first-last is something that is no healthy for the game (as it triggers bid wars with ridiculous bid amounts) so I don't think that the inability to do first/last will significantly nerf any of those ships.

No I meant the other points beyond that paragraph.

Also, I don't think it was designed to go first last, although I could see why that would be your takeaway from what I said. I meant that the ability to do that had to be factored into their design and cost. Unless you want to tell me that the designers had no idea people would do that with these ships, or first last isnt something worth considering in the design phase?