As fantasy flight will not update the tournament doc, let's take charge and do so!

1) We need to retire and select a new deployment/objective

2) Shall we raise the point limit to 225?

What say ye? I'll get a google doc going with the community tournament doc.

If there's a will to carry on with a community driven, centralized tournament document in the old model, I absolutely agree that we need to get a new set of scenarios selected. The question is, was the old system (by which there were three, with one new one deployment and one new objective rotating in and replacing the oldest in each category every quarter) working well? If not, should we scrap it or tweak it? If so, should we continue where we left off, or accelerate the retirement or reboot it completely since the last set was so very straightforward in its "kill for points" theme?

In either case, what kind of selection process should be used for new additions/removals? Should there be restrictions on how long one is included, or minimum retirement times after it's rotated out?

Finally, I didn't think points expansions were seeing a lot of broad support in the community. I'm not heavily opposed to them, but can you expound on what motivated you to bring tweaking the points limits to the table, why they should increase, and what made you suggest 225? Have people in your meta been experimenting with it, and if so, how evenly has it affected factions and playstyles? Why not more? Why not a smaller increase? Would an extra 25 points be enough to unlock a third standalone unique unit?

Now that I've posted questions for discussion, let me chime in with my positions:

I liked the rotating objectives. It provides some stability, in that they're not all fresh each quarter. I think quarterly is the fastest cycle I'd want, and I might support slowing down to 4 or 6 month cycles given few areas see monthly tournaments.

I do think that getting stuck with an objective you didn't like for 9 months could be a bummer, though. On a quarterly or 4 month release, I could see moving to 4 objectives and 4 deployments, rotated in and out 2 at a time, so each scenario card is in play for two cycles. This would also allow for paired objectives to balance each other out, if desired, or for deployments to feature a relatively neutral option and a more impactful option.

I basically like the game's objective/deployment system. Kaffis's suggestion of lengthening the seasons, maybe rotating completely seems very sensible. Would be nice to see a mix of aggro and objective based play. New scenarios are fairly easy to write, too, and it's not like FFG set a very high bar for comprehension with some of them!

I've never tried 225, but I do find that most games barely make use of the full 6', so there's almost certainly room for more. I'm open to it. I'd also advocate for two-list formats, but additional complexity is maybe not the correct direction for a game that struggles so hard to fill seats.

I think another FAQ/Errata is the more pressing concern, honestly. There's a pretty long list of unresolved interactions that I believe @oda204 was curating, and balance needs to be addressed. I realize that's a much bigger ask, but as long as the best answer to the question "why wouldn't I bring Uthuk to a tournament" is "because I dislike their minis more than I like winning" we have a very real problem. Plus, with this being almost assuredly all the options we'll ever get, each and every one needs to have a role to fill. No freeloaders!

1: I like the sound of rotating 1 to 2 objectives in and out, not all 3.

2: I've never tried bigger than 200, I'd have to test it a few times to see if it felt right.

Just to stem this a little; @tgall and I are talking (with some others) in the Initiative One discord. I'm taking point on the tournament doc and FAQ for the moment, freeing him up to work on his campaign idea without us overlapping too much.

I have some ideas about balance that I'm going to get into more detail tonight on the show, but to summarize briefly, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution, so I'm going to hand local TOs the tools they need for balancing their own metagames rather than banning/restricting/recosting things across the world. For more detail, stay tuned; I hope to have the first versions of both documents done by the end of this week, as well as a lot of talk about it on the podcast for this week.

We got started in this discussion yesterday. My thoughts are there.

And from the ashes it's great to see the community come together for this game. Picking up the various docs, and making a go at keeping this game going.

If you're not on discord, now is a good time to do so. https://discord.gg/BC2eWY

For real time discussion that's the place!

I see we've got a few broader issues raised in this thread that aren't raised in the other:

1. Objectives: Let's do it. Some of us want to keep playing right now. I like the 4 objectives, 2 in/2 out. Also, I don't know how long people want to keep doing this long term, but I'd think a couple years worth of cycles would be worth it. Who knows where we'd all be at with respect to the game after that?

2. FAQ/ERRATA: This is one where I agree it is necessary, but one also where FFG is fully within their power, and also responsibility to carry out. Granted, they might not carry it out quickly. I've done these kinds of things before with other games, and generally speaking, it works best if a smaller cohort (15ish) works on them, and then submits them to the community to take or leave. It also needs some principles for governing the decisions, and it needs a way of weighing when some kind of imbalance is within a tolerable spectrum and should probably just be left, and when it is actively affecting the balance. The most active proposals to me seem quite overly done. I'm all for a minimalist approach, one that maximizes balance by making the fewest tweaks.

3. Points expansions: I'd leave this to individuals. Now that there isn't any kind of organized play to prepare for, playing a larger or smaller point game becomes much more interesting to me, but you need agreement with your opponent. Once we leave the unity offered by organized play, it is entirely up to two individuals to decide what they want to do.