3 minutes ago, marlowc said:

Who else could I ask, at least you guys play the game (even if it is a much inferior version ) . And rest assured, we've tried several lists against him - you just kill the ship he's on. But, that's a bit boring after a while, so we thought to try something new.

Have you tried playing by the right ruleset? That might make things different for you all. I'm more confused by the No Objectives thing you guys have going on, that's the weird thing to me.

How does the bidding work? Each turn? With what do you bid? Interested to try your variant!

31 minutes ago, marlowc said:

Indeed, that's about the size of it. So, what do you think of our proposed Sato mod?

I have a hard time seeing how Sato could ever be effectively used under your proposed rules. You would have to move the squadrons into position during one turn, then fire at the start of the next. Because the shot activates the squadron, Sato only gets one shot per squad, and gives up the squadron bomber die. So, effectively, the rebels will spend 11 points (A-wing) for losing 0.25 damage per shot (replace 2 red & one non-bomber black with 2 black dice). Z-95's are a better option, but slow. (lose 2 reds & 1 non-bomber red for 2 black = no net damage increase, 7 pts)

If the Imperials are generally fast ships, then they can move away from the unactivated squadrons, preventing Sato from affecting his shots.

4 minutes ago, marlowc said:

Who else could I ask, at least you guys play the game (even if it is a much inferior version ) . And rest assured, we've tried several lists against him - you just kill the ship he's on. But, that's a bit boring after a while, so we thought to try something new.

I mean the alternative is just killing the squadrons. I haven't found Sato to be terribly powerful provided you take the squadron mini-game seriously. He's an expensive commander relying on a specific circumstance to work and then his ability when it actually does work is fairly niche. You need just the right balance of combat ships (because dedicated carriers trying to avoid the fight don't benefit much at all) and squadrons to make a go of it and then you need extra upgrades (like black crit upgrades, for example) to make those exchanged dice mean much. Upgrading 2 red dice to 2 black dice improves your average damage for by 0.5. That's not very impressive for all the work it takes to set up, honestly. It only gets better when you have upgrades that care about those dice colors, like Leading Shots or Ordnance Experts or color-crit-dependent upgrades and that's even more points tacked on to your expensive commander with your expensive squadron component and your expensive combat ships. You run out of points fast with Sato.

He's much better at 500 when you have more spare points, in my experience.

1 minute ago, geek19 said:

Have you tried playing by the right ruleset? That might make things different for you all. I'm more confused by the No Objectives thing you guys have going on, that's the weird thing to me.

Games are very much personal taste aren't they, there is no "right" ruleset in my view. We do use objectives, or scenarios if you prefer, just not the standard ones. These are an attempt to mitigate the standard system of one player going first every turn. Our bidding system gets round that, and produces a game that we much prefer. (Of course, I was joking when I said the standard game is inferior, each to their own )

Sato is a chronic underperformer, who aside from triggering black crits long range adds between .5-1 avg dmg to an attack iff you put the pieces in place.

He looked good on paper, then failed to deliver his promises. This is a player issue but a card issue.

28 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

How does the bidding work? Each turn? With what do you bid? Interested to try your variant!

It's nothing revolutionary really, alternating activation games have been using it for years so we can't claim any credit .

Both sides have 30 tokens, and after randomly allocating initiative for the first turn, you secretly bid a number of your tokens at the start of each subsequent turn. Winner chooses whether to go first or second. The tokens used are then discarded. Before each bid you can ask how many tokens your opponent has left. If it's a draw, the person who went second last turn wins this time.

21 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

I have a hard time seeing how Sato could ever be effectively used under your proposed rules. You would have to move the squadrons into position during one turn, then fire at the start of the next. Because the shot activates the squadron, Sato only gets one shot per squad, and gives up the squadron bomber die. So, effectively, the rebels will spend 11 points (A-wing) for losing 0.25 damage per shot (replace 2 red & one non-bomber black with 2 black dice). Z-95's are a better option, but slow. (lose 2 reds & 1 non-bomber red for 2 black = no net damage increase, 7 pts)

If the Imperials are generally fast ships, then they can move away from the unactivated squadrons, preventing Sato from affecting his shots.

The "spotter" squadrons would have to be positioned the way bombers often are. Ahead of the ships, or in their path so you get to place them once the target has moved. I was thinking more Z95's rather than expensive squadrons.

(Your analysis doesn't take into account the many, very effective black dice boosting cards.)

12 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

He's much better at 500 when you have more spare points, in my experience.

Absolutely agree, his rise to prominence in our group has very much mirrored the rising standard fleet points total.

Just now, marlowc said:

The "spotter" squadrons would have to be positioned the way bombers often are. Ahead of the ships, or in their path so you get to place them once the target has moved. I was thinking more Z95's rather than expensive squadrons.

Bombers only need to be within red range (move 3 + move 1) Your spotters must be within 1 before they activate, and then cannot move to where they need to be next turn. You'll probably get 2 turns of shooting before you need to reposition against big & slow ships, but you'll need to move every other turn against fast ships.

Overall, I feel like the proposed change is a huge decrease in Sato's effectiveness (one squad per altered shot, no squadron bombing attack), and a huge increase in the complexity of using him (must pre-position the squad correctly, can't reposition after).

12 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Overall, I feel like the proposed change is a huge decrease in Sato's effectiveness (one squad per altered shot, no squadron bombing attack), and a huge increase in the complexity of using him (must pre-position the squad correctly, can't reposition after).

It certainly is a significant decrease in effectiveness for Sato. Surprisingly, we found that there was usually a squadron in the right place, at the right time provided you take around 7 or 8 to start with. The big negative is that your squadrons get well hammered because they are loosing their activations, either fighting, or bombing. This is much less of a problem if the Rebels concentrate their attacks on one ship at a time, which is a good thing anyway isn't it. We're thinking maybe dropping a few point off our modded Sato, which seems a bit bonkers doesn't it .

i seen 132 point of rebel fighters chewed up in two turns. I just dont get much use out of him id the other guy has a strong cap patrol.

but mc30 with APT is brutal with him, change red to black cf a black. Oe for the crit.

Sato in 400pts with objectives is a tough list build.

You do not have the points to use Strategic for missions. Thats a big problem.

The ships with high squadron activations are also the same ships which benefit least from Sato.thats a big problem.

Once you have properly invested in squadrons points are tight to maximise his ability. Thats a big problem.

One shotting an Arquitten with 6 ordnance experts ACM dice? Priceless.

This was kind of a roller coaster of a read, and is a fantastic illustration of how seemingly minor house rules can have major impact in totally unexpected places. OP, you will find very few players in the standard game who find Sato to especially powerful, and given the uniqueness of your games, I would try rolling back house rules to see if that resolves the issue before stacking more on. Objectives, in particular, will go a long way toward addressing the monotony of the "just focus down the flagship" tactic.

That said, you sound pretty set against that idea. So, working within the framework you have, I think this is a very substantial nerf to Sato as Bal demonstrated, and needs to be recosted as such. I'm talking like mid 20's, probably. Sato's major drawback is already the point constraint associated with bringing an expensive admiral, a substantial squadron complement, AND a strong gunship complement all in the same 400-point list. You can mitigate the impact of increasing his already-high execution complexity by reducing that constraint.

If you want to take him in a little different direction with less impact, you might try limiting him to one attack per ship, like Screed.

I am also curious, if you are seeing alot of Sato, have you looked at the options to deal with long range black crit effects? You can take ships with evades which evade the black crit at long range, add Needa and an evade to Imperial medium/large ships, add damage control officer to contain the ACM/APT crit to any ship with a contain (you can even use Endeavor for an MC80 Liberty). I believe every ship in the game either has an evade, can take Needa, or can take damage control officer (with a title for the Liberty).

Raiders are also a great Sato counter. His squadrons want to get in close? You double black flack them near your own ships!

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

If nothing else - its impossible to judge balance against things - either for an initial version or a house rules version, when people are judging based on different baselines.

If you've modified the way you play the game - I'm sorry. Asking for advice from people who do not play that way is fruitless... I wish we could give better advice, but our advice is inherently biased and based on the only thing we - as a community - generally have in common... And that's the base rules.

In demonstrative - but anecdotal - parlance, all we can reinforce is what Baltanok said - in a game space with reported results, using the baseline rules, Sato's "Okay", but he's not "Fantastic, Nerf Nao Plz" ...

So given that, we have to look at your Variables and why is Sato that much better? - The only way you'll be able to tell if the House Rules are an issue or not, is to remove them as a variable - then try to see if Sato is Unbalanced in that format... What people here are trying to tell you is that he, generally is not considered to be... That makes your Sato experiences, again, generally speaking, an outlier based on what is gathered, scientific data...

As for the card, Its an interesting concept, to be sure... But I don't think I'd ever play Sato the moment the enemy can Screed-Fletchette Torpedo my Admiral into uselessness.

Keep speaking sexy, man! I love it when logic is involved in discourse!

4 hours ago, marlowc said:

Who else could I ask, at least you guys play the game (even if it is a much inferior version ) . And rest assured, we've tried several lists against him - you just kill the ship he's on. But, that's a bit boring after a while, so we thought to try something new.

Inferior? Really? lol.

4 hours ago, marlowc said:

Games are very much personal taste aren't they, there is no "right" ruleset in my view. We do use objectives, or scenarios if you prefer, just not the standard ones. These are an attempt to mitigate the standard system of one player going first every turn. Our bidding system gets round that, and produces a game that we much prefer. (Of course, I was joking when I said the standard game is inferior, each to their own )

There is, in fact, a right rules set. They were created, tested, and errata'd into a form of play that balances the game. Your changes seem to have broken those balances. That is something folks here cannot really help with, as many others have said, as they deviate from the rules as written (which is discussed here).

I am glad you guys have fun with your home brew, I guess the best solution is just to say that your suggestion will most likely work for your games.

9 minutes ago, Geodes said:

Keep speaking sexy, man! I love it when logic is involved in discourse!

Inferior? Really? lol.

There is, in fact, a right rules set. They were created, tested, and errata'd into a form of play that balances the game. Your changes seem to have broken those balances. That is something folks here cannot really help with, as many others have said, as they deviate from the rules as written (which is discussed here).

I am glad you guys have fun with your home brew, I guess the best solution is just to say that your suggestion will most likely work for your games.

Eh, I wouldn't take quite so hard a line as right or wrong. The point is to have fun, so if they're having fun, their way is just fine.

This is showcasing one of the big problems with house ruling a living game like this, though. You have to play test and rebalance for every successive wave that comes out, because each wave brings new stuff that might be fine with the standard ruleset but completely broken--or just super boring--with your house rules.

If somebody is willing to put in that kind of time and effort, more power to them. The small gripes I have with the standard rules are not worth that trade-off to me personally, but if they are for someone else, who am I to say they're right or wrong as long as everybody they play with is cool with it?

Many thanks for the intelligent comments, it's fascinating to see that other people are perfectly happy with Sato - just goes to show how the meta in one group can be so different.

With hindsight, I really should have either not mentioned our changes to the game, or explained them more thoroughly. Much confusion seems to have arisen about them. I just didn't want to have to write a half page post off topic.

Please take my word for it that our house rules don't unbalance the game, and are not the cause of our dissatisfaction with the way Sato plays. In any case, this isn't really a question of balance, which is only one aspect of game design isn't it. Jeez, I've been playing 40K for years, and they still haven't got close to balancing that one have they.

I think we will be staying with our modded Sato, but reducing his cost by 3 or 4 points.

I just have to ask:

How is Sato dominating the meta of your group? I mean, I love the idea behind him, but I've never been able to make a fleet that seems to work. House rules aside, what are the specific mechanics that are making him seem to overperform?

Is it OE rerolled blacks from Paragon? Is it APT crits from long range? (In which case, why are they not just being evaded away?) Is there some esoteric interaction with other upgrade cards that I haven't seen yet?

I'm legitimately curious here. I think that part of the reason everyone's been focused on your house rules is that under the normal rules nobody has seen any indications that Sato's anything more than mediocre. Maybe rising to just barely good in a niche list or two.

I think that independent of other issues, your decision to house rule out the missions has probably skewed your game style to the point where there is really no way to rebalance any issues. the ability to score more points than your opponent by focusing on mission objectives is a major part of the game balance.

This thread is so warm and cosy.

I think any house rules are an abomination and only lead to confusion when , or if, players end up going to a different location, like a tourney, and are then confronted by the actual rules.

8 hours ago, Onidsen said:

I just have to ask:

How is Sato dominating the meta of your group? I mean, I love the idea behind him, but I've never been able to make a fleet that seems to work. House rules aside, what are the specific mechanics that are making him seem to overperform?

Is it OE rerolled blacks from Paragon? Is it APT crits from long range? (In which case, why are they not just being evaded away?) Is there some esoteric interaction with other upgrade cards that I haven't seen yet?

I'm legitimately curious here. I think that part of the reason everyone's been focused on your house rules is that under the normal rules nobody has seen any indications that Sato's anything more than mediocre. Maybe rising to just barely good in a niche list or two.

He's not dominating our games, we just don't like the way he plays, just doesn't feel right. Making the spotter squadron use it's activation seems a more interesting way to go.

8 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

I think that independent of other issues, your decision to house rule out the missions has probably skewed your game style to the point where there is really no way to rebalance any issues. the ability to score more points than your opponent by focusing on mission objectives is a major part of the game balance.

We do use missions, scenarios and objectives in our games, just not the standard ones.

9 hours ago, marlowc said:

With hindsight, I really should have either not mentioned our changes to the game, or explained them more thoroughly. Much confusion seems to have arisen about them. I just didn't want to have to write a half page post off topic.

Actually, next time DO provide a half page or even three pages of context before posting questions regarding ideas for a house-ruled game! Game dynamics change significantly just by increasing the point cap which means that other rules may create other substantially different interactions between ships, squadrons and upgrades that a 'standard' 400 point game cannot do on its own. If you want us to indulge in a hypothetical discussion about nerfing/boosting the effectiveness of an upgrade card, then the entire context is necessary to give a constructive answer. By merely leaking small bits of info here and there, it is more puzzling to ponder what exactly is going on in your games rather than your actual question