So it is becoming clear to me that "Key Positions" is causing players to go down the rabbit hole of bigger and bigger bids, just so they can win this objective, which to me seems like a not entirely healthy thing. Clearly, FFG didn't realize the monster they had created with this card. In fact, in every demo game I have ever run, this has been the objective I pre-choose, never once realizing how broken it is if you play it as it says (when I run a demo, I pick three pieces of terrain roughly inbetween both players, for a fair and fun game). In light of this, I think FFG needs to errata the card to read:

"Starting with the Blue Player, he places an objective token as close to the center of the board as possible (6 from long edge, 3 from short edge). Then the red player selects a piece of terrain beyond Range 1 of any other objective and places an objective token on it. Finally, the Blue player does likewise."

This would allow both players to chose an objective close to them, but would need to fight over the middle. Would eliminate the crazy bidding just to win Key Positions. I just think building lists is more fun that 20 point bids because 1 card is accidentally broken. Thoughts?

I don’t see how one card could kill the game.

Dont get me wrong, Key Positions IS horrible, but it doesn’t have to be included in the 12 condition/objective cards you bring, and if someone does include it, you can easily flip it.

Also if someone is doing a 20pt bid, just for that one card, then that is a foolish waste of points, unless they see value in being blue player for the other cards as well. I’m still on the fence on whether blue player is worth it (Key Positions not included). Have there been any metrics on if blue is worth it yet?

As for your change, why not just borrow wording from other cards, something like:

”Place 1 objective token in the center of the battlefield on the nearest piece of terrain. Starting with the blue player, each player then places 1 objective token on a piece of terrain that is completely outside all deployment zones.”

Two sentences and it’s hard to screw with. ?

I wonder what percentage of players in this gameplay competitively... Because in every other style of play you should just change the card to keep your crew happy if its an issue.

It's definitely an issue for big comps though and hopefully, they will make it more balanced ASAP.

Well, if key positions is the third choice in the objective grid then there's nothing you can do to stop it.

However for the change I think they should be make it like Armada, you choose from Red Player's deck, not blue.

Sure, take that bid, you're never gonna see key positions and I'll have an 800 point army.

3 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Well, if key positions is the third choice in the objective grid then there's nothing you can do to stop it.

However for the change I think they should be make it like Armada, you choose from Red Player's deck, not blue.

Sure, take that bid, you're never gonna see key positions and I'll have an 800 point army.

The player with the biggest bid gets to choose which color player they are. If it was otherwise and your rule was implemented, wouldn't you be just punishing anyone who didn't fill up to exactly 800 points? What benefit would being Blue player have?

In fairness, I never noticed this either. So I can see why ffg wouldn’t.

Playing with friends, we’ve not been too cheesy/gamey with our match ups. A bid didn’t matter that much, as nobody had priority supplies so the deck was going to be the same anyway.

At FFG’s weekly Legion, we are going through the operations posted online so no mission deck involvement. Elements of the meta emerge (activation advantage/spam), but no ridiculous bidding wars.

3 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

The player with the biggest bid gets to choose which color player they are. If it was otherwise and your rule was implemented, wouldn't you be just punishing anyone who didn't fill up to exactly 800 points? What benefit would being Blue player have?

Choosing his side of the table.

But, having the lowest bid makes you choose between being red or blue. If you didn’t bring Key Positions and you see no use choosing your side of the table, it could be a good thing to choose to be red instead and garantee that we use your objectives, that you have last pick in the cards and deploy second.

Reading the rules, I don’t think one color is intended to be better than the other.

20 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

Choosing his side of the table.

But, having the lowest bid makes you choose between being red or blue. If you didn’t bring Key Positions and you see no use choosing your side of the table, it could be a good thing to choose to be red instead and garantee that we use your objectives, that you have last pick in the cards and deploy second.

Reading the rules, I don’t think one color is intended to be better than the other.

Blue is supposed to provide at least a slight advantage since you brought fewer points.

11 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

Blue is supposed to provide at least a slight advantage since you brought fewer points.

Not necessarily. If you brought fewer points, you get to choose the color that you think advantage you the most, you're not automatically Blue. It's just that currently, probably in most part because of Key Position and the fact that we use the Blue player cards, everybody pick Blue.

Select Player Color and Sides: The player whose army has the lowest point total chooses to be either the red player or the blue player. Then, the blue player chooses one of the long table edges and sets their army near that edge. The red player takes the other long table edge. If both players’ armies have the same point total, roll a die or flip a coin to determine which player chooses to be red or blue

Blue having a slight advantage is one thing, but in competitive games having a 100% win rate on one card choice is b it more than a slight advantage, having 4 objectives to choose from actually giv es blue an advantage on the same card because of the limits on positioning

Talking about anything slowly killing a game that's been around for under a year seems a bit extreme. This thread reminds me of a Board Game Geek reviewer that thought suppression and a 3x6 battlefield were Fatal Flaws that no gone could possibly succeed in light of.

8 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

The player with the biggest bid gets to choose which color player they are. If it was otherwise and your rule was implemented, wouldn't you be just punishing anyone who didn't fill up to exactly 800 points? What benefit would being Blue player have?

So this is an interesting thing......I can't find anywhere in the rules that the blue player gets to use their battle deck to define the game.

RRG Page 16:

DEFINING THE BATTLEFIELD During setup, players define the battlefield by selecting objective, condition, and deployment cards. First, they shuffle the objective, deployment, and condition decks separately. Then, they draw and reveal three cards from each deck, placing the Damaged Token UNITS AS AREA TERRAIN When treated as area terrain, the AT-RT forms a cylindrical zone, defined by the edges of it’s base and the highest point of it’s mini. When checking line of sight, a defending mini obscured by this zone will benefit from light cover. Rules Reference 26 three cards from each deck in horizontal rows, called categories, facing the blue player’s long table edge. Then, starting with the blue player, each player takes turns choosing a category and eliminating the leftmost card in that category’s horizontal row until both players have had an opportunity to eliminate two cards. After each player has had two opportunities to eliminate a card, the leftmost card in each category’s row that was not eliminated is the card used to define the battlefield for the game (see example on page 6). • A player may forfeit their opportunity to eliminate a card if they wish to do so. • If players eliminate the first two cards in a category, the final card cannot be eliminated. Related Topics: Battlefield, Condition Cards, Condition Tokens, Deployment, Objective Cards, Objective Tokens, See “Setup” on page 6.

RRG Page 6

4. Select Player Color and Sides: The player whose army has the lowest point total chooses to be either the red player or the blue player. Then, the blue player chooses one of the long table edges and sets their army near that edge. The red player takes the other long table edge. If both players’ armies have the same point total, roll a die or flip a coin to determine which player chooses to be red or blue.

5. Reveal Battle Cards: Shuffle the objective, deployment, and condition decks separately. Then, draw and reveal three cards from each deck, laying out each category in a horizontal row oriented right side up according to the blue player’s side of the battlefield.

6. Define Battlefield: Starting with the blue player, players take turns choosing a category and eliminating the leftmost card in that category (see the example below). A player may also forfeit their opportunity to eliminate a card if they wish to do so. After each player has had two opportunities to eliminate a card, the leftmost card remaining in each row is the card used during the battle. If players eliminate the first two cards in a category, the final card cannot be eliminated.

There's also nothing on page 5, the section on army building about building a Battle Deck.....

Am I missing something here? I swear I head months ago, at least at the time that priority supplies came out that part of your showing for competitive play was you brought 4 of each type of battle card and then shuffled each type and drew three.....
Anyone else remember this?

Players shuffle the blue player’s objective, deployment, and condition decks separately,
then draw and reveal three cards from each deck, laying out each category in a horizontal
row oriented right side up according to the blue player’s side of the battlefield.

It's under the tournament rules section

43 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

So this is an interesting thing......I can't find anywhere in the rules that the blue player gets to use their battle deck to define the game.

RRG Page 16:

DEFINING THE BATTLEFIELD During setup, players define the battlefield by selecting objective, condition, and deployment cards. First, they shuffle the objective, deployment, and condition decks separately. Then, they draw and reveal three cards from each deck, placing the Damaged Token UNITS AS AREA TERRAIN When treated as area terrain, the AT-RT forms a cylindrical zone, defined by the edges of it’s base and the highest point of it’s mini. When checking line of sight, a defending mini obscured by this zone will benefit from light cover. Rules Reference 26 three cards from each deck in horizontal rows, called categories, facing the blue player’s long table edge. Then, starting with the blue player, each player takes turns choosing a category and eliminating the leftmost card in that category’s horizontal row until both players have had an opportunity to eliminate two cards. After each player has had two opportunities to eliminate a card, the leftmost card in each category’s row that was not eliminated is the card used to define the battlefield for the game (see example on page 6). • A player may forfeit their opportunity to eliminate a card if they wish to do so. • If players eliminate the first two cards in a category, the final card cannot be eliminated. Related Topics: Battlefield, Condition Cards, Condition Tokens, Deployment, Objective Cards, Objective Tokens, See “Setup” on page 6.

RRG Page 6

4. Select Player Color and Sides: The player whose army has the lowest point total chooses to be either the red player or the blue player. Then, the blue player chooses one of the long table edges and sets their army near that edge. The red player takes the other long table edge. If both players’ armies have the same point total, roll a die or flip a coin to determine which player chooses to be red or blue.

5. Reveal Battle Cards: Shuffle the objective, deployment, and condition decks separately. Then, draw and reveal three cards from each deck, laying out each category in a horizontal row oriented right side up according to the blue player’s side of the battlefield.

6. Define Battlefield: Starting with the blue player, players take turns choosing a category and eliminating the leftmost card in that category (see the example below). A player may also forfeit their opportunity to eliminate a card if they wish to do so. After each player has had two opportunities to eliminate a card, the leftmost card remaining in each row is the card used during the battle. If players eliminate the first two cards in a category, the final card cannot be eliminated.

There's also nothing on page 5, the section on army building about building a Battle Deck.....

Am I missing something here? I swear I head months ago, at least at the time that priority supplies came out that part of your showing for competitive play was you brought 4 of each type of battle card and then shuffled each type and drew three.....
Anyone else remember this?

I believe it’s in the tournament rules not the RRG.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Talking about anything slowly killing a game that's been around for under a year seems a bit extreme. This thread reminds me of a Board Game Geek reviewer that thought suppression and a 3x6 battlefield were Fatal Flaws that no gone could possibly succeed in light of.

I wouldnt say its killing the game but if this card gets chosen you may as well pack up and start a new game if you are playing red . Played correctly there is really no reason for blue to lose, and given the game is built on stacking each slight advantage in your favour, whether it be your army build , correct interpretation of the meta in your gaming group, selection of battle cards, having the blue bid, or having more points.

Having an all but guaranteed win for the blue player when one card is selected (and having conditions that occur that can guarantee the blue player can select said card), seems to be against the sensibilities of the game that is built on you stacking your chances based on more miniscule advantages in comparison.

I've only played it as the OP suggests, ie, we chose fun looking places for the objectives.

I think "serious play" is a broken concept and "serious players" will always find ways to break various game components due to their compulsive need to win. Go and fix this, they'll just break something else. Trying to appease tournament goers (who knowingly and willfully broke the game then complained it was broken) did a ton to kill off WFB.

It's not up to the core rules to be good tournament regulations. Sounds like tournaments should ban this card.

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I've only played it as the OP suggests, ie, we chose fun looking places for the objectives.

I think "serious play" is a broken concept and "serious players" will always find ways to break various game components due to their compulsive need to win. Go and fix this, they'll just break something else. Trying to appease tournament goers (who knowingly and willfully broke the game then complained it was broken) did a ton to kill off WFB.

It's not up to the core rules to be good tournament regulations. Sounds like tournaments should ban this card.

This. So much this.

When we have played the battle deck, and it’s come up, we specifically chose thematic pieces of terrain that looked legit. Nothing that would fundamentally break the game.

And hardcore competitive players will always find a way to “break” the game exactly as you suggested, so I see no reason for this card to be bad or altered except for in their world.

5 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

I believe it’s in the tournament rules not the RRG.

So it is, thank you.

On 10/27/2018 at 4:18 AM, arnoldrew said:

The player with the biggest bid gets to choose which color player they are. If it was otherwise and your rule was implemented, wouldn't you be just punishing anyone who didn't fill up to exactly 800 points? What benefit would being Blue player have?

Anyway,

I don't think there should be a mega-benefit to taking an otherwise crippling bid.

Blue gets to choose the side of the board (which can be an incredible benefit) and they win an otherwise tie game. Instead how about you stay in the 795+ range and don't pin your win strategy on a single objective card that has to come up in a super specific spot for you to even get to have it in play?

To everyone else, it is kind of on the red player if Key Positions is chosen, unless it is in the third spot.

KP-X-X - Red can flip this card on either their first or second choice.

X-KP-X - If blue flips card 1 as either their first or second choice then red can flip KP as either their first or second choice.

X-X-KP - Blue has to devote both of their card flips to dig down to KP. If they flip a non-objective card as their first choice you're fine. If they flip Objective 1 as their first choice then you know what their strategy is and can use your choices to define the battle as best you can rather than getting instantly demoralized.

Turn 0 play is important.

That said I still think it should be set up like Armada where 1st player (aka blue) chooses from Second Player's (aka Red) battle cards.

5 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I've only played it as the OP suggests, ie, we chose fun looking places for the objectives.

I think "serious play" is a broken concept and "serious players" will always find ways to break various game components due to their compulsive need to win. Go and fix this, they'll just break something else. Trying to appease tournament goers (who knowingly and willfully broke the game then complained it was broken) did a ton to kill off WFB.

It's not up to the core rules to be good tournament regulations. Sounds like tournaments should ban this card.

Agreed. The first and only time I played Key Positions, I was blue player and my first placement for an objective was on a terrain in the middle of the board since it would provide an interesting and competitive game.

It certainly was a rules fail that they didn’t restrict the placements more, but only on the tournament scene. For those purposes, there is no reason they couldn’t ban the card at any time. Not like people need to pay their way into it like in a CCG.

Key Positions IS BROKEN and needs addendum. Why isn't FFG addressing this?

On 10/27/2018 at 5:08 PM, syrath said:

I wouldnt say its killing the game but if this card gets chosen you may as well pack up and start a new game if you are playing red . Played correctly there is really no reason for blue to lose, and given the game is built on stacking each slight advantage in your favour, whether it be your army build , correct interpretation of the meta in your gaming group, selection of battle cards, having the blue bid, or having more points.

Having an all but guaranteed win for the blue player when one card is selected (and having conditions that occur that can guarantee the blue player can select said card), seems to be against the sensibilities of the game that is built on you stacking your chances based on more miniscule advantages in comparison.

Considering the red player has a superior force (in points value), it makes sense that they’d have the uphill battle in this (or any other) scenario.

8 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Considering the red player has a superior force (in points value), it makes sense that they’d have the uphill battle in this (or any other) scenario.

Yeah, man, that 799 army is at such a gigantic deficit to my 800 army. They really need to have 2/3 of the points automatically given to them.

Don't even get me started on my opponent with an 800 army who was able to roll a 50% chance on a red defense die to become the blue player. I'm amazed their beleaguered force even had the will to face such overwhelming numbers. Really inspiring you know.

2 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Yeah, man, that 799 army is at such a gigantic deficit to my 800 army. They really need to have 2/3 of the points automatically given to them.

Don't even get me started on my opponent with an 800 army who was able to roll a 50% chance on a red defense die to become the blue player. I'm amazed their beleaguered force even had the will to face such overwhelming numbers. Really inspiring you know.

So, if I’m reading your sarcasm correctly, believing that the scenario is just so lopsided and a virtual certainty of being chosen, you and your opponent neither build your army to win as red for that exact scenario nor bother to exact a meaningful point reduction?

ie Why wouldn’t you either run all CQB (Flametroopers, Vader, an AT-ST / Fleet troopers, Luke/Leia, AT-RT flamers) in anticipation of having to storm two locations within distance 1 of each other?

For that matter, given that it’s possible for the scenario to come up, why wouldn’t you place extensive cover in the run-up to any terrain near your opponents potential lines?

It really does seem like there are a large number of strategic choices in play apart from the supposed fait accompli of one measily objective.

7 hours ago, Derrault said:

So, if I’m reading your sarcasm correctly, believing that the scenario is just so lopsided and a virtual certainty of being chosen, you and your opponent neither build your army to win as red for that exact scenario nor bother to exact a meaningful point reduction?

ie Why wouldn’t you either run all CQB (Flametroopers, Vader, an AT-ST / Fleet troopers, Luke/Leia, AT-RT flamers) in anticipation of having to storm two locations within distance 1 of each other?

For that matter, given that it’s possible for the scenario to come up, why wouldn’t you place extensive cover in the run-up to any terrain near your opponents potential lines?

It really does seem like there are a large number of strategic choices in play apart from the supposed fait accompli of one measily objective.

You're right, I should anticipate every single possible deployment zone that my opponent could get when we are setting up the table before I even know how big their army is or what side of the table they will be on, or what deployment zone options will come up in the battle cards/be chosen. Which of course then gives my opponent even more great options of a terrain piece right over the line of their eventual deployment zone tp designate as a key position.

I've said above that it is not at all a virtual certainty of being chosen, in fact it only has, at best, a 25% chance to become a certainty for the blue player. However when you're going to justify an obvious overwhelming advantage for one side by saying that the red player has an advantage because their army has more points I think it's pretty fair to emphasize that the point difference could very well be minuscule/negligible or even non-existent. And if that is the case, why does the blue player deserve this advantage again?