I would very much prefer to just nuke Temporary Alliance instead of trying to come up with band aid restrictions.

Mercs don't need the card at this point to remain competitive, and it remains a design problem as long as it exists (every Rebel figure has to be balalnced around it), and eJawa is enough for a satisfactory cross faction mechanic.

Considering the Team Covenant HotE review specifically mentions supporting Maul with other force users in skirmish via TA, I don't think it's going anywhere.

With the next expansion coming out, I'm sure it won't be long before everyone yet again finds the new "best list" and we'll all be complaining about some other card/trait/list.

I am a fan of temp alliance.

However, I would not mind replacing Temp Alliance with a Rebel version of Temp alliance allowing them to bring Mercenaries on their squad. That's always seemed more thematically correct. Mercenaries will fight for anyone who pays.

5 hours ago, Fightwookies said:

I am a fan of temp alliance.

However, I would not mind replacing Temp Alliance with a Rebel version of Temp alliance allowing them to bring Mercenaries on their squad. That's always seemed more thematically correct. Mercenaries will fight for anyone who pays.

But the Rebels are broke and could never out-bid the Imperials.

2 hours ago, caseycheesecake said:

But the Rebels are broke and could never out-bid the Imperials.

Rebels aren't destitute. If I recall, they paid one of Jabba's smugglers handsomely for his role in the rescue of Princess Leia.

On 21. 7. 2017 at 10:34 PM, DerBaer said:

I have to disagree on Take Initiative.

There are a lot of Command Cards, that are overpowered. If I were part of the design team, I would solve that by adding more cards on that level. Nobody really seams to care, when a command card becomes obsolete ... no cries of doom then. Make as many cards on that level, that taking Take Initiative actually IS a decision.

I think, that Take Initiative, Negation and Comm Disruption balance the Bonus, that comes with going first on turn 2. Without Take Initiative: If you go last on turn 1 and first on turn 2 for sure, then you overextend without any chance, that this might go wrong. Then it is too good to have more activations then the opponent. This might lead to an activation creep. I'm not sure, if I'd want that.

I would make that many great cards, that it is impossible to have a weak starting hand. Then there will be balance.

But imagine how powerful your command deck would need to be for you to not include Take Initiative in it! It is currently the best 0-cost card in the game. They would need to print at least 7-8 0-cost cards that were MORE POWERFULL than TI! It's also arguably more powerful than a lot of the 1- and 2- cost cards being played right now, so we're actually looking at 10+ BETTER cards than TI at cost 0 before running it becomes a question. And then we have a bunch of new potentially problematic cards - if they want to push out one of them, they need to print 10+ even BETTER cards than that. That's the definition of power creep right there and we're literally 2-3 cycles of that away from a 0-cost Assassinate.

And all that's before we even start discussion how inaccessible that would make the competitive game to a new player.

On 21. 7. 2017 at 10:34 PM, DerBaer said:

oops

8 hours ago, burek277 said:

thought-provoking

I actually love the idea of Saska she just wasn't designed with a practical skirmish card as most of the figures of that day were also not practical.

Imagine Saska at 4pts. . . 7 health like Hera, a useful ability that allows flexibility and thematic lists of smugglers or a "temporary alliance" with the mercs. If they changed her pt cost (don't make it so dramatic) and kept her from blowing things up in her face, I'd use her in all my smuggler lists whether I took the mercs or not. Bringing in Onar or having some weequays/hired guns fight along side your alliance smugglers, Han, Hera and Lando would make a very thematic and fun list.

5 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I actually love the idea of Saska she just wasn't designed with a practical skirmish card as most of the figures of that day were also not practical.

Imagine Saska at 4pts. . . 7 health like Hera, a useful ability that allows flexibility and thematic lists of smugglers or a "temporary alliance" with the mercs. If they changed her pt cost (don't make it so dramatic) and kept her from blowing things up in her face, I'd use her in all my smuggler lists whether I took the mercs or not. Bringing in Onar or having some weequays/hired guns fight along side your alliance smugglers, Han, Hera and Lando would make a very thematic and fun list.

That's exactly what I did with her. I just printed her card out with a cost of 4 and voila, a totally playable character.

Also...Biv to 6, Diala to 6 with health to 10, Fenn to 6, Gaarkhan to 6, Jyn to 4, Loku to 3, and Verena to 6.

All of a sudden, 8 rebel heroes that are good and usable!

We’ve had some interesting discussions locally about the meta. The meta is not bad, but some changes could be made to make it more interesting and more fun (less swingy and more variation).
The basic thing most people agree on, is that there are a few very strong command cards (Son of Skywalker, Blaze of Glory, Assassinate, Tools for the Job etc), that Weequays are slightly undercosted, and that initiative is super important (which makes Devious Scheme and Take Initiative super important, but also the die roll).

Some suggested fixes:

- Initiative is the hardest to fix, since even removing Devious Scheme and Take Initiative, the die-roll becomes super important. Getting initiative on turn 1 (and not having it turn 2) makes so much difference… so how do we fix this? Maybe the person who starts with Initiative should also get 1 more command card at start? (4 cards vs 3)? That is kind of what happens in some card games as well to balance out the first player advantage (in IA it is more like initiative first round disadvantage). Or maybe 3 cards for the player iwth initiative round 1, and only 2 cards for the other guy.
This also balances Devious Scheme (because you would then also be GIVING your opponent a command card if you use it). Take Initiative still needs some work though (mayb even more because the player who has initiative round one has more chance to draw it and play it round 2). Maybe 2 points, maybe needs another requirement (exhaust cards value 4 or higher total) or maybe just remove it from the game and replace it with something else.

- Son of Skywalker and Blaze of Glory maybe need a slight nerf to stop the super blowouts. Perhaps the card should ‘Ready the deployment card. After your activation ends, you become stunned’. This makes it harder to chain multiple activations (if you blaze end of turn, you only get limited actions if you have first activation the turn after) and make them more vulnerable/less of a threat afterwards. it also makes thematic sense that they are exhausted from the super rush (Blaze of Glory already has this partly with its 3 damage it inflicts on IG)

- Weequays are maybe just slightly too efficient. Someone locally said that they should lose a trait, which is an interesting idea. I think the best is to lose the hunter trait, keep the smuggler trait (more flavorful and we have enough hunters). This removes their access to Assassinate. Maybe make Tools for the Job a hunter only card as well to remove access to that? It keeps it for the hunters (so also for IG, but I think if the above Blaze of Glory fix is implemented, this is ok). Small changes, but makes the eWeeq less likely to do a super blowout.
I also think Squad Swarm should be Imperial Only, since I think using it with 2 sets of eWeeq it might be too good. It is also not really in flavor. Strength in Numbers I think is fine.

I think the above changes would already make the meta shift slightly and make it all a bit better. What to do with Take Initiative though...
I don't think there are more changes needed, although I must say I always found it odd that Gideon had no range limiation on his abilities. So maybe he needs that (at least on his focus part? Movement part is probably ok in LoS)

In my opinion scum would still be the strongest faction wven with these nerfs you mention. There are a lot of deployments which are very strong and low cost aswell, it's not so harsh to make up a list with 8-9 strong activations, while rebels (a little) and imperials (much more) struggle with this issue

The new map (NH Swamp) seems to favor one side heavily. Perhaps this will change how people view the T1/T2 Initiative question? If choosing a side is a big enough advantage, then maybe not having Initiative on T2 is a bit better (possibly ever preferable?).

On ‎21‎.‎07‎.‎2017 at 10:34 PM, DerBaer said:

I would make that many great cards, that it is impossible to have a weak starting hand. Then there will be balance.

Just found this link.

an this is why i quit X-wing, the Palpatine and Manaroo Nerf was too severe

The problem with nerfs in a game like IA is twofold: first, they are very much in-your-face. In a computer game, a small nerf that tweaks some numbers might be pretty much invisible to the casual player. Second, they are hard to communicate to everyone. In a computer game, you can "send" the nerf to everyone simultaneously. In a game with physical components, not so much. I'd be willing to guess that over 1/4 of the people who own an IA Core set don't know about the changes to the Imperial Officers or the Royal Guards.

But the biggest problem with nerfs, and something I think they didn't quite catch in the video, is that they can significantly alter the game is played, which can turn people off. In a game like SF, this might be the ability to perform combos. In a game like IA, this might be an Assassinate or Take Initiative ban, or removing the "hide" ability from the qWeequays. This type of nerf changes how a whole faction plays and should usually be avoided, even though it might be beneficial to the game overall.

But nerfs don't have to be like that.

You can make nerfs that don't significantly alter how a game is played, in the sense that players don't feel like they can't do something they really enjoyed before. Adding limitations can even be a good thing! Removing the ability to cancel a powerful attack in SF is a good example of this. Changing the deployment cost of a group by 1 shouldn't drastically change how the game is played, it simply forces you to look at your army in a different way. Giving a powerful card like Take Initiative an added restriction (there have been several good examples for this made by others) doesn't change the core dynamic of a game. Giving Assassinate a "this has to be the only CC you play during this activation" or just straight up making this a rule for all CCs can change the micros of each game, but not the overall dynamic and, I believe, the overall level of enjoyment of the game.

And nerfs aren't the only thing in a game that works like this. Heck, every change you make can be good or bad, and all of them have pitfalls you need to watch out for. Imagine if FFG decided to go the way of printing more and more powerful CCs. "True To The Story (15 cost CC) - if all your deployment cards are from the Rebel faction, you win the game." This card is definitely powerful, potentially even fair (or could be with some extra restrictions built it), but it definitely isn't good for the game!

TL;DR Not all nerfs were created equal. Nerfs can break a game, but they can also make it a lot better. Just like any other change to a game.