So, this card is an obvious auto-include, and Negation becomes one by default as a result. In my thread on my Worlds report, several other posters floated ideas. @theChony floated two ideas of either increasing the cost or letting the opponent choose which of your figures to exhaust. I think the latter would be too harsh (of course I do; I like to run Jedi Luke :-) ). But what about a one point increase in cost? Is that enough? Too much? Are we wrong to lament the dominance of this card?

-ryanjamal

I have sometimes suggested the same thing; increase it's cost, since it really can dominate (or whiff if you run into negate).
What take initiative does is (like all command cards) disrupt the normal flow. This is good, because some uncertainty is needed in the game to make meaningfull decisions.
But there should be a cost, and currently it is very low for take initiative. Compared to other disruptive cards, this seems undercosted. But being at 0 does mean negate works against it as well...

At 1 cost, I think most lists will still take it. It is still one of the strongest command cards, especially now that negate no longer protects against it because it would no longer be 0 cost. This would make the card maybe even more annoying to play against.
At 2 points, it is in the same range as Tools for the Job and Heightened Reflexes and such. Now it becomes interesting... which card do you pick for your list?
Using take initiative now not only costs an exhaust, but also 2+ damage. But it is almost unstoppable (since Negate doesn't work). Comm Disrupt still works for spy lists though.
Consider also that Han's command card is almost the same as take initiative and costs 2 (advantage: no exhaust. disadvantage: always need to activate han first).

So I would say 2 points is probably the best choice. But it would be strange that this makes the card uncounterable by negate.
1 Point would be a mistake I think (no negate and the cost is not that much of an issue).

If I could rewrite the card, I'd add "After your opponent's first activation this round, they may activate another unit." That way, you get the first activation, but then your opponent gets two, so really you just moved one activation (a Bantha or Weequay squad swarm or Luke) forward one, instead of moving all of your activations forward one.

Does that make sense? If you didn't play Take, the activation order would be Opponent's Weequay 1, your Jedi Luke, opponent's Weequay 2, your Obi-Wan, etc. Right now, when you play Take, your Jedi Luke will go before their Weequay 1, Obi-Wan goes before Weequay 2, etc. It changes the whole turn around. With my change, Luke will still go before Weequay 1, but Obi-Wan still goes after Weequay 2.

I like Paul's idea to get one activation moved up but honestly I'd be completely fine if the command card was banned. Having it right now basically makes command decks 13 cards and 14 points.

That and Devious Scheme change the flow of the game so much and if we could remove them it would become an actual decision about how many points you keep your list at if you wanted to be garunteed Initiative for the start of round 2.

I just think it's a no brainer to have them and they don't take any particular skill to play at all. Games can be decided on whether you drew Take or Negation at the right time. And I know you can say that of any command card but most other cards give you choices on when or how to use them. I just think it's unhealthy for the game.

If you play Take Initiative and your opponent Negates it, you don't have to exhaust a character, correct? Because the actual contents of the card were not played out. Maybe they could change it so that you still DO have to, it's a small sacrifice but a double punishment. Maybe it would make people second guess the play?

If we could just figure out how to not make it an auto include the game would be better off, there should be more risk for the reward.

41 minutes ago, pheaver said:

If I could rewrite the card, I'd add "After your opponent's first activation this round, they may activate another unit." That way, you get the first activation, but then your opponent gets two, so really you just moved one activation (a Bantha or Weequay squad swarm or Luke) forward one, instead of moving all of your activations forward one.

That is also an interesting way, but then the exhaust + not having initiative next turn (since it goes back to your opponent) seem like a really high extra cost, at least that is my gut feeling.

I wonder if the designers have tested other versions (when the card was created but also recently maybe)

7 minutes ago, FrogTrigger said:

If you play Take Initiative and your opponent Negates it, you don't have to exhaust a character, correct? Because the actual contents of the card were not played out. Maybe they could change it so that you still DO have to, it's a small sacrifice but a double punishment. Maybe it would make people second guess the play?

If we could just figure out how to not make it an auto include the game would be better off, there should be more risk for the reward.

Correct. You only have to exhaust a figure if Take Initiative actually goes through.

Part of the problem could be solved if we got maps with deployment zones closer together so that figures could engage each other in the first turn without too much extra work. It would also make it more of a trade off using some of the staple support figures like Gideon and C3PO because those early turns could be used for dishing out damage instead of focusing figures.

Right now a large part of round one is getting your units prepped for round two so getting initiative round two is huge.

I'm fine with keeping it because it makes assuming you'll get initiative a risky proposition. Do you really want to push JK Luke all the way up at the end of round 1, because your opponent might TI?

Increasing the cost of TI would mean Negation no longer counters it. Thus is reduces the importance of Negation and it's secondary benefit of cancelling a 0-cost card after your opponent plays TI because Negation was at the bottom of your deck AGAIN NO I'M NOT BITTER. Ahem.

I like Paul's idea of modifying how TI works but keeping its cost the same. However with his modification, it's still an auto-include -- it would be better if there was just a bit more risk involved to make players think twice about adding it.

Perhaps we can keep TI the same but change the exhausted deployment cost: You must exhaust deployment card(s) of a total cost of 5 or greater. That way the player who played TI loses potentially 2 or more low-cost support deployments. This means the Rebel Care Package is most likely completely taken out of the turn.

6 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

I'm fine with keeping it because it makes assuming you'll get initiative a risky proposition. Do you really want to push JK Luke all the way up at the end of round 1, because your opponent might TI?

Increasing the cost of TI would mean Negation no longer counters it. Thus is reduces the importance of Negation and it's secondary benefit of cancelling a 0-cost card after your opponent plays TI because Negation was at the bottom of your deck AGAIN NO I'M NOT BITTER. Ahem.

I like Paul's idea of modifying how TI works but keeping its cost the same. However with his modification, it's still an auto-include -- it would be better if there was just a bit more risk involved to make players think twice about adding it.

Perhaps we can keep TI the same but change the exhausted deployment cost: You must exhaust deployment card(s) of a total cost of 5 or greater. That way the player who played TI loses potentially 2 or more low-cost support deployments. This means the Rebel Care Package is most likely completely taken out of the turn.

I really like the idea of changing the cost of the units you have to tap for it to be used. If they made that change they could change it to figure cost and make the total like 4-5.

Yes the figure cost might be the key here, if you can set it above an Imp officer or Gideon to an actual damage dealing card that could be an even trade off. Ok sure you get to go first.. but you will be attacking with one less deployment card this round.. seems like a fair trade to me. It would be huge for list building strategies as well and while it might still be an auto include, it might not be an auto play. Is that first attack really worth sacrificing one of your deployment cards when you've only got say 3 out of 4 left, or 2 of your cards are half dead, or Vinto has 2 health left but he is the only one you can burn and will certainly die without getting to attack this round then.. etc..

A lot more scenarios open up.

I like the idea of it being a combination of figure costs as well. If someone wants to use 3PO and Gideon to Take Initiative or a couple of officers or something I think that leads to more interesting decisions.

The reason why I stuck with the cost of 5 and higher (instead of 4 and higher) is to tilt the calculation towards multiple cards. Single deployments that cost 5 would be a tough choice to exhaust for a round: Vinto, eImpOfficer, Dewback.

It would also mean that your list would have to be better built around using TI, especially when you're using a decent cost 4 card. (Do I exhaust Hera & C3P0, leaving me Gideon? If I use 0-0-0, do I need to make sure I have an rImpOfficer? What about Greedo?) Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe that's not the best.

Putting the total cost at 4 tilts the calculation back to many single deployments groups able to cover the cost on exhaustion. That still keeps you from using C3P0/rImpOff/rUgnaught/Jawas as cheap TI exhaustion targets. But it does mean that eAllianceSmuggler is the *perfect* group for TI.

Is that a fair enough tradeoff? TI exhaustion cost is 4 or greater, but one 4-cost group becomes incredibly valuable for TI usage?

Today in my local IA group I heard an argument that because stealing that first activation is so powerful, the total exhaustion cost should be 6 or more. That would almost ensure multiple support deployment groups would be exhausted. I'm not for sure if the 6-point minimum is the best as it may reduce TI usage to nil - basically if you don't draw it for the start of the second round, you're not going to use it. But I can understand why some players think the power of TI warrants such a price.

yeah. I have a feeling that exhaution cost should be at least 5 if the cost of card remains the same

I like this idea of adding a minimum cost to the exhausted group.

Another idea would be to penalise the first activation you make after using TI. Either a 2 damage or 2dmg and 1 strain or a combination of harmful conditions. That could be a good risk/reward choice?

Or maybe: you have to exhaust group/groups of cost equal or greater to the cost of the first group you are going to activate this turn?

7 hours ago, Jarema said:

Or maybe: you have to exhaust group/groups of cost equal or greater to the cost of the first group you are going to activate this turn?

That's really good.

9 hours ago, Jarema said:

Or maybe: you have to exhaust group/groups of cost equal or greater to the cost of the first group you are going to activate this turn?

I like this idea, but it gives a very sigificant advantage a select pool of lower-cost deployments that attack just as good as some higher-cost deployments: e.g. BT-1, Vinto, Greedo. I think TI should be playable for all deployments, even if it means JK Luke benefits from being the first activation.