1 hour ago, Ram said:

Speaking of nerfs/erratas, I for one do not feel that the Rebel sabs are quite as overposered as they were once considered to be...

2xBlast 2 is still pretty stupid, that shouldn't come back.

On 2/3/2019 at 1:43 AM, TheWelcomeMat88 said:

The Vader vs Ezra attack thing is so weird, but before rerolls or turning a die they both average just above 5 damage when attacking one another, which is crazy (Vader has 52% chance to hit Ezra for 5, Ezra has 51% to hit Vader for 5). Of course Vader's reroll and Ezra's getting to fix a die really change that math, but it is pretty insane that Ezra's attack is close to the same as the strongest figure in the game, and with Brash he has the movement to set up pummel- something much harder for Vader to pull off.

I'll be honest guys- the meta for IA has grown stale for me, the only two/three "counters" (I put that in quotes because statistically Spectre has still been winning the most of the time by far) to Spectre are Hunters or Vader and maybe the Box with Han Drokkata. That's it. I enjoy solving a puzzle, and Spectre can be beat, but man everything has to go almost perfect for you to win, whereas Spectre can lose 1-2 figures early and still come back many times to win. Attacking Ezra is one of the most frustrating experiences in this game- with Kanan nearby he has access to every defensive bonus a figure can have in this game- He can play On the Lam, he can dodge, he can reroll, he has static blocks (2 of them!!) he can recover damage later, and at the start of round he gains movement points to either put him in safety or position him to attack. With no product for the future to speak of, I'm not confident about where the meta is right now that the game can survive an extended absence of some sort of new Skirmish content release (the overall decreased turnout at tournaments this Regional season sadly supports this idea). This is still my favorite game of all time, but the design of the Spectre Cell card (and especially Rebel Graffiti you gotta be kidding me about that card) don't give me any sort of confidence about the design of this game for the future. We really need an FAQ or a new expansion, we need so many figures recosted (it's super depressing how much content in this game is unusable at the competitive level). Right now I don't want to even play on Vassal anymore because I'm pretty sure I'll end up usually facing either Spectre Cell, Vader/Palp/Thrawn, Han/Rangers, or some sort of IG list (very few folks even run the VP manipulation list that I adore). It just gets old after awhile.

That's brutal. I'm in a similar boat, but I'm definitely going to go down with the ship, whenever that will be. I love this game so much and won't leave it until it is officially dead and buried, at which point I'll design my own skirmish maps and also play campaign for once. Our community is small, but keeps me interested as nobody plays SC. I get it that for comp play, people want to bring the list that wins them the swag. But for me premiere comp play is a SMALL part of the game for me. Others on here seem to live and die by it. Our community encourages fun lists and we're lucky to get more fun players than competitive players. So, as long as it's not a premiere tournament, I could care less. As for premiere tournaments, I don't go to them any more. This game is amazing, but it's difficult for me to endorse premium play. It's just not my thing and nothing to do with IA. If fact, I felt it was worse for the other SW games.

I really feel that something is coming and will be released soon. My gut says they're all wrapped up in red tape with Hasbro and Disney biting at their heels. In saying that, I was at a major tournament recently and heard a play tester talking to the designer. He just wanted an inclination about what was happening next in the IA world, and the designer refused to give him anything. This was 6 months ago! I also know another playtester who hinted at some cool things to come. In saying that, there are lots of people on here who must be in the know and are not allowed to say anything. Given that they're saying nothing to make us feel better makes me think of doom and gloom.

Any playtesters who feel like confessing their sins to me, please send me a direct message. I promise my lips are sealed.

15 hours ago, miguelj said:

2xBlast 2 is still pretty stupid, that shouldn't come back.

I respectfully disagree. The only band that would really be hurt bad by this in todays meta is SmugglerBox versions. All others are pretty much not bothered as they dont need to be that tight and/or that they are sturdy enough to take the blast. Also, the eRebSabs are 6 health and awfull range, meaning that they will die really fast. They will be fairly strong but in no way broken.

SC (the card) is too powerful, but that's just my opinion.

But the cries of doom have more than one reason:

IA is a great game. The basic game mechanics are great. It is easy to learn, but hard to master. There is not much room for cheating. It is the perfect mix of a board game and a tabletop game. And it is Star Wars. Therefore, there is is a very high degree of player dedication. Even more so, because entry cost is quite high (dedication becomes higher with higher investment).

AND there are no alternatives. When an edition of Warhammer becomes unplayable, then you just play any other tabletopgame, like Warmachine, or whatever. Or you just wait for the next FAQ or edition. But there is no other game, that's anything like IA. The alternative to IA is not playing something else, the alternative is to not play at all. Therefore, the fear of loss of the investment is much higher.

We had a truly perfect state of the game:

FFG once had a great player communication (like every Friday). But that's gone.

FFG once had great OP kits (including medals/coins for first prize, cool other stuff like dice bags, health counters, cards you actually needed). But the prize support became uninteresting. The started new designs of tokens before they finished the sets with older designs, stopped first prizes, etc.

IA had a great, diverse and balanced meta till SC was released.

IA had a fresh meta about 2-4 times per year with new stuff being released all the time.

=> We all know, what we've lost.

Right now, there is next to no player communication, OP kits s*ck to a degree, that local FLGSs don't even bother ordering them, we don't really know, if there will ever be new physical content. Many deployment and command cards have been rubbish, when they were released, others have become rubbish. I'd say half of my figures have never seen play, 90% of my figures have not seen play lately.

Maps are released way after being in the rotation, so FLGSs don't even order them.

And on top of that, we have the SC problem.

What's most frustrating: There would be easy solutions to all the problems. 1 article per week could be easily done. Better OP support could be easily done. A set of new, balanced deployment cards for all existing figures could be easily done. Changing the map rotation AFTER releasing a new map could be easily done. Fixing SC could be easily done.

I think that's part of why the SC problem escalates so hard in the forums:

Many believe, the end of this game is near (for different reasons). And if FFG cancels the line, the then current meta will be there FOREVER. And the current meta s*xks.

And many gave up on the other problems, like communication, new releases etc. because they realized, that FFG won't change that. But the SC is a problem, that could be solved, and a type of problem that FFG has solved in the past (Royal Guards). So there is a focus on that problem.

The SC card brings 3 boni: +1 damage, +1 block, extra attack.

That's too much. Remove any 1 of those 3 boni, and the card would be OK (I would tend to either the 1 damage or the 1 block). Maybe make SC 3 points, so Extra Armor or Motivation are out of the equation.

Then we would instantly have a diverse meta again.

I think it is all out the extra attack that should be erratad away. SC can pull off combos every turn that were before pretty much limited to by-command-card once per game (barring Leia recycle) limitations. With that ability, SC can more often then not just move in and off something and even if the SC member gets killed itself it may still have a points wise positive trade done.

We have played without the extra attack a bit and SC is still very strong but the damage level drops to more reasonable levels. I appreciate the unique feeling argument presented before in this thread, but right now I just want this gone. The game is broken and needs to be fixed.

Because I like to start my mornings by irritating myself, I checked the attack stats of SC Ezra vs the other two factions "queen pieces".

SC Ezra does significantly more damage to both IG and Jedi Luke than either will do to SC Ezra per attack. This is before rerolls, which Ezra has but neither Luke or IG do. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if SC Ezra cost between 10-14 DPs. (Which based on strength is about where he belongs). But instead he costs 7.

The problem with SC as a whole is math. Cold, hard, unforgiving math. If you bring SC and your opponent doesn't, your figures will perform better and more consistently than your opponents. They hit harder and defend better and do so in a way that isn't dependant on card draw or getting lucky.

In a sense, it's like going up against a casino. Unless some things go right for you, eventually the mathmatical edge will destroy you

I believe SC doesn't perform well on Uscru and on large maps in general. Also those maps are best for Han+Ranger. Considering Lothal Wastes went into rotation yesterday, the biggest loser in my opinion is the SC. SC got a new large map and at the same time Han+Ranger got a bit more advantage. Perhaps even Weequays may jump again into the meta, and more kiting lists means more troubles for SC. I don't share your concerns on SC and I don't believe it's OP. After last rotation I believe this is even more true.

9 minutes ago, Trevize84 said:

I don't share your concerns on SC and I don't believe it's OP.

Well, unless everyone else shares your belief, it doesn't solve the problem of SC being the only opponent I ever seem to face these days. Which is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very boring, "OP" or not.

21 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

Well, unless everyone else shares your belief, it doesn't solve the problem of SC being the only opponent I ever seem to face these days. Which is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very boring, "OP" or not.

SC is the most common opponent mostly because is the cheapest list you can build. I met a ton of new players that could arrange a SC list for just 150-200 euros (less if you are lucky enough to find used equipment). You can't do much about it, you need to wait new content. SC is designed to be the cheapest choice. But that's not the topic of the post, original question is how to beat SC. My previous post suggests kiting. In my experience Thrawn is also effective, because discarding Strength in Numbers can be devastating for the SC player. Kiting however is the most effective way to win.

17 minutes ago, Trevize84 said:

SC is the most common opponent mostly because is the cheapest list you can build.

I'd be more inclined to think this is the case if it wasn't also incredibly popular with top end players who have access to all possible lists.

54 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

Well, unless everyone else shares your belief, it doesn't solve the problem of SC being the only opponent I ever seem to face these days. Which is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very boring, "OP" or not.

Half the people at my regional played SC and it took 3 of the top 4 spots. Granted, the guys playing it knew their business so it's not like any noob can waltz in and win a regional solely on the power of SC.

The problem (IMO) is that it's significantly stronger than any other list which is why somewhere between 40-60% of lists for competitive play are SC right now and why a bunch of top players are running it

I don't think that it's significantly stronger than other top-end lists, but I do think it's likely a bit above the curve. As I see it, the issue right now is that the following groups of people are all playing Spectre:

• New players, because the attack/defence bonuses make it a strong beginner's list and because it is relatively cheap
• Competitive players, for whom "a bit above the curve" is enough of an advantage to make it worth making the switch
• Other players who read about how it's the hot new "strong list" and adopt an "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality
• People who just like playing with the new stuff
• People who like the characters from TV
• People who find the extra spectre mechanic fun/interesting, people who want to run jedi competitively, etc.

So even though I don't think that it's an unbeatable juggernaut of a list, I do think that it's probably not great for the meta right now just because so many Spectres are out there. And the more people play spectre, the more spectre will win and the more other players will think that they need to give in and also run spectre in order to compete. I don't get to play often enough to worry about it personally, but I can see "Spectre Fatigue" as being a real thing for someone who plays a lot.

58 minutes ago, ManateeX said:

I don't think that it's significantly stronger than other top-end lists, but I do think it's likely a bit above the curve. As I see it, the issue right now is that the following groups of people are all playing Spectre:

• New players, because the attack/defence bonuses make it a strong beginner's list and because it is relatively cheap
• Competitive players, for whom "a bit above the curve" is enough of an advantage to make it worth making the switch
• Other players who read about how it's the hot new "strong list" and adopt an "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality
• People who just like playing with the new stuff
• People who like the characters from TV
• People who find the extra spectre mechanic fun/interesting, people who want to run jedi competitively, etc.

So even though I don't think that it's an unbeatable juggernaut of a list, I do think that it's probably not great for the meta right now just because so many Spectres are out there. And the more people play spectre, the more spectre will win and the more other players will think that they need to give in and also run spectre in order to compete. I don't get to play often enough to worry about it personally, but I can see "Spectre Fatigue" as being a real thing for someone who plays a lot.

I think this is a good analysis. I do also think that at some point it will fizzle out, whether it gets finally figured out by players or FFG errata's the skirmish upgrade?

1 hour ago, ManateeX said:

So even though I don't think that it's an unbeatable juggernaut of a list

So, before I disagree with you about the quoted, I should point out you make a lot of great points and also aknowledge there's more than going on with the popularity of Spectre than it being overpowered.

Also, I do believe that introducing a cookie-cutter competitive list a few years in to a game is a good idea so new players don't have a fairly daunting barrier to entry.

Here's the problem:

Earlier I compared playing against Spectre to playing against a casino and I believe that's the correct analogy. The math is simply not in your favor. In doing prep for Regionals I set up a spreadsheet detailing each figure from each faction's expected damage per attack and a few other factors like health/cost ratios and unit damage per cost ratios (expected damage for all figures in a group per round divided by deployment cost)

Without going too far into it, the Spectres were clear outliers compared to all the other groups/units (alliance rangers were about the only group that was close). This is why I feel like the casino analogy is appropriate. Like playing against the house, when you play against Spectre the numbers aren't in your favor which is why it's dominating the meta right now (in addition to some of the other points you raised.)

My fix for what it's worth, would be to change the Spectre cell card to cost 3 and make it an attachment.

What would change, if it was an attachment?

4 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

What would change, if it was an attachment

The additional damage/block/free attack/move would only apply to a single unit instead of all 6 figures.

2 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

What would change, if it was an attachment?

Defeating the group it's attached to would grant you points and remove it from the game, so it would then be "straightforward" to defeat the rest of the squad.

7 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Defeating the group it's attached to would grant you points and remove it from the game, so it would then be "straightforward" to defeat the rest of the squad.

Also this. As harsh as a Nerf as this sounds, it's still a pretty good upgrade card compared to the other available skirmish upgrade cards. (Rebel high command costs 2 for example and only gives you another command card per round)

Spectre Cell can turn a 7/8 cost figure into a figure with comparable strength to a standard 10-13 cost "queen piece". It might be more reasonably priced if the restriction was meaningful. However it's not like any of the Spectre figures are a hardship to bring along ("Oh no! I have to bring Sabine!" Said no one ever). Chopper is probably the least useful, but he costs 3 and can screw up your opponents card draw which still provides value.

11 hours ago, Jaric256 said:

However it's not like any of the Spectre figures are a hardship to bring along ("Oh no! I have to bring Sabine!" Said no one ever). Chopper is probably the least useful, but he costs 3 and can screw up your opponents card draw which still provides value.

...and you don't strictly speaking even have to take Chopper, if you think you'd get more value out of more Skirmish Upgrades.

14 hours ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

I think this is a good analysis. I do also think that at some point it will fizzle out, whether it gets finally figured out by players or FFG errata's the skirmish upgrade?

I rather suspect that if it was going to be "figured out", that would have happened by now.

An errata for the skirmish upgrade is what we are all begging for. I'm not entirely sure it'll be enough (it might make the list less outright effective, but many of the other reasons for taking SC succinctly outlined by @ManateeX would still apply, so we'd still see it everywhere) but it'd be a start.

18 hours ago, Jaric256 said:

The problem with SC as a whole is math. Cold, hard, unforgiving math. If you bring SC and your opponent doesn't, your figures will perform better and more consistently than your opponents. They hit harder and defend better and do so in a way that isn't dependant on card draw or getting lucky.

In a sense, it's like going up against a casino. Unless some things go right for you, eventually the mathmatical edge will destroy you

I excel every single figure since the beginning of this game. 99% of the time, I get a really good estimate of how good a figure is (I have to admit that I underestimated the eWeequays in the first place and had to adjust the formulas then).

Hera, Sabine and Chopper are top tier figures even without the Spectre Cell card. I would use them anytime even without Spectre Cell.

Zeb and both Jedi are slightly below top tier, but still above average. To be honest, I would not use them without the Spectre Cell card.

The Spectre Cell card is the strongest card in the game by pure math. This does not take into account, that Zeb and the Jedi are more ore less close combat only (which is not a bonus, as you have to expose these figures to attack). This means: You got to know what you are doing, if you want to play them effectively. But IF you know, what you are doing, they are incredibly strong. At least stronger than everything else.

This does not make them unbeatable. A more skilled player with the right list and a little luck will beat them. But as a comparison: 4x4 was not unbeatable. The right amount of Rebel Sabs combined with good support was able to beat them. It just was an uphill battle. The same is true for the Spectres. It's not impossible to beat them, it's just an uphill battle ...

Still just math: The house edge in Black Jack is just 0.475%, the house edge in Roulette is just 1.35% ... and Casinos worldwide make billions with that small unbalance.

Therefore, I'd say "unbalanced" does not necessarily mean unbeatable. A small edge sometimes is enough to make a game one-sided ... and my Excel Fu says, the Spectre Cells advantage is distinctly more than 0.475%.

17 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

I excel every single figure since the beginning of this game. 99% of the time, I get a really good estimate of how good a figure is (I have to admit that I underestimated the eWeequays in the first place and had to adjust the formulas then).

I'd be curious to know your formulas, if you feel able to share them without eroding your competitive edge.

I've seen attempts at it, but most of them seem to be fundamentally flawed in one or more ways. (For example, the first one I saw, back in the days of 4x4, tried to fudge its formula such that an Imperial Officer should be worth 2 points... completely ignoring that an IO was clearly worth more than 2 points at that time, or at least that four of them alongside RG were worth way more than 8 and 40. So the whole spreadsheet was worthless.) But if you've kept yours going since the start you may have a better insight.

Also just preemptively acknowledging the usual disclaimer that formulas alone won't ever precisely determine the worth of the figure, for all the usual reasons (there are many). Still curious to see what you've come up with though, if you're willing to share.

Over the years, it became really complicated, so just the key indicators:

- Average damage dealt per round per point cost. (I calculate that per deployment card, not per figure)

- Health per point (including defense boni)

- threat range - move plus range plus all kind of move and range boni.

Then it gets complicated, because you have to factor all kind of boni and rerolls, normalize, compare results of three figure groups to one figure groups etc.

E.g.: I divide the results by reference figures' results, e.g. Elite Stormtroopers. Then values above 1 are better than the reference, below 1 are worse.

Actually, I want to change "health per point" to "number of average attacks the figure survives". That would make the calculation more exact. But that one's tricky to accomplish...

3 hours ago, DerBaer said:

I excel every single figure since the beginning of this game. 99% of the time, I get a really good estimate of how good a figure is

Oh thank God, I'm not the only one.

One thing I would like to quibble with you a little is the strength of Zeb, Kannan, and Ezra outside of Spectre Cell. I don't think the reason they don't get brought is because they aren't strong figures, but just a lack of synergy with other non-spectre rebel lists.

If force users, for example, had command cards on par with say hunters and/or Jedi were a viable list Ezra (and probably Kannan) would be must brings. Zeb is actually a pretty good unit by himself (high health, multiple attacks) he just doesn't fit in very well with rebel lists.

Sidebar: Can we just lament the fact that Jedi aren't really a viable list at high levels? That seems like a huge mistake for a star wars game

3 hours ago, Jaric256 said:

Sidebar: Can we just lament the fact that Jedi aren't really a viable list at high levels? That seems like a huge mistake for a star wars game

Yes, we can!

When you factor range, the Jedi and Zeb are just not that good (without Spectre Cell). Compared to any long range unit like eWeequays: Those units can move out of cover, shoot, move back to cover. Close Combat units can't do that. They have to expose themselves. This can be done, when you have high health, +1 block and a defense reroll or something like that. In other cases I just don't like close combat figures. That's why SC Ezra (or Vader) is great, but other Jedi are not.