6 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I've been trying to do my part. Nk-7s, this, I've got a few more brewing. I realize I'm a particularly loud part of the problem sometimes lol

It's times like this where I miss @Piratical Moustache . I disagreed with him on almost all his suggestions or predictions, but the threads he started fostered positive discussion within the community.

We have had a couple of threads of this topic. Most people seem to see this as an area that needs attention. The cost of the admiral also includes the opportunity cost. Imperials have lots of good cheap flexible commanders, rebels have mostly overpriced specialists that need particular builds and a high opportunity cost to not produce a big effect.

My thought is making them all free is too drastic and would bring a need to rebalance them so more errata. If they were all free why would you ever take craken?

Id just do some heavy points tuning. All the rebels down to 22 -24 points max. Maybe ackbar a little higher but not heaps.

Imps bring all the current 30point plus dudes down to mid 20s. Especially Tarkin.

3 minutes ago, Ophion said:

If they were all free why would you ever take craken?

Honestly, some of the toughest MSUs I ever faced used Craken. In early 2017 I got beat like a rented mule of a redheaded stepchild.

But I do agree that it would be FAR too much errata to eliminate commander costs.

I don't think making all commanders free would be helpful, as it makes it even harder to balance them against one another. Less extreme benefits like Garm compared to stronger benefits like Ackbar just aren't the same, even with fleets designed around them.

That said, I've always been keen on how Warmachine did it. Your commander is free and furthermore brings bonus points you get to spend on (for our purposes) ships. So If we assume that the highest commander cost right now is 38 and will stay that way, Tarkin would be completely free with no bonus points and Ozzel would be +18, for example. Would get a bit more ships in the game and would never make the commander feel like dead points, as was not infrequently the case earlier in the game.

1 minute ago, Snipafist said:

I don't think making all commanders free would be helpful, as it makes it even harder to balance them against one another. Less extreme benefits like Garm compared to stronger benefits like Ackbar just aren't the same, even with fleets designed around them.

That said, I've always been keen on how Warmachine did it. Your commander is free and furthermore brings bonus points you get to spend on (for our purposes) ships. So If we assume that the highest commander cost right now is 38 and will stay that way, Vader would be completely free with no bonus points and Ozzel would be +18, for example. Would get a bit more ships in the game and would never make the commander feel like dead points, as was not infrequently the case earlier in the game.

That actually sounds pretty good.

I dont know about making commanders free, what i would like to to not have to take a commander.

Why i cant even see the reason we need a commander lore wise cause we're playing with maybe a patrols worth of ships at a time, surely they would be commanded by the largest ships captain? Its not like ackbar went to every battle for example.

And i know countless times where i only needed 5 points more to setup the fleet and i had to take a commander instead when i didnt want one lol

3 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

I dont know about making commanders free, what i would like to to not have to take a commander.

Why i cant even see the reason we need a commander lore wise cause we're playing with maybe a patrols worth of ships at a time, surely they would be commanded by the largest ships captain? Its not like ackbar went to every battle for example.

And i know countless times where i only needed 5 points more to setup the fleet and i had to take a commander instead when i didnt want one lol

I think that's kinda where this idea originated. I can't tell you how many times someone has had to chunk out upgrades or even commanders of an otherwise solid fleet to make room for something. I've seen some good ideas in this thread. I certainly wouldn't mind the system getting a little attention.

48 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I think that's kinda where this idea originated. I can't tell you how many times someone has had to chunk out upgrades or even commanders of an otherwise solid fleet to make room for something. I've seen some good ideas in this thread. I certainly wouldn't mind the system getting a little attention.

The commanders provide balance though and a fleet direction. If we go to the Warmahordes method of plus points, all ships are going to be increasing in costs. So you CAN bring that giant SSD; it just costs 419 minimum for Ozzel shenanigans. I like being forced to bring a commander, as it makes you direct a fleet in a certain way. If you don't want anything flashy, Dodonna/Ozzel get work done and are 20 points. That's just the start/cost of doing business.

So points plus is the same as what we have now, it's just playing a slightly bigger game. Instead of taking a 400 point fleet, where you *have* to pay at least 20 points for an Admiral, think of it as a 380 point fleet, (or smaller with the more expensive ones).

Does it restrict what you can put in your fleet, yes! But it adds to the fun (and challenge) of constructing a fleet. Making the most use of those points, also, how many are you leaving for a bid, etc.

Do some cost a lot, yep! But there are good reasons for that, as play many of the more expensive commanders at a 500 point CC final fleet game, and see how much crazier they get. All the admirals scale up, but getting a bunch of extra ships for Vader to give re-rolls, Tarkin to give tokens to, or Ackbar to give dice too? It's super nasty! And fun, if everyone's doing it.

But you'll quickly see why they limited both the points in general, and the ship/commander/upgrades that can be taken because of it.

Still I have to echo a few posts here, this has been one of the funner discussions I've read! Please keep them up!

Also, try the task force format! It's one where commanders are optional, so you don't need them. You could even scale that up and see how it goes, though I think you'd fin in bigger games that the commander is such a force multiplier (usually) that they'll be better than the fleet with 20-40 more points... (but I haven't tried that, so don't quote me on it )

8 hours ago, geek19 said:

The commanders provide balance though and a fleet direction. If we go to the Warmahordes method of plus points, all ships are going to be increasing in costs. So you CAN bring that giant SSD; it just costs 419 minimum for Ozzel shenanigans. I like being forced to bring a commander, as it makes you direct a fleet in a certain way. If you don't want anything flashy, Dodonna/Ozzel get work done and are 20 points. That's just the start/cost of doing business.

I think im happier with mandatory commanders too. They add some personality and character and an element of personal stakes to the game. Especially if you have had a commander 'retired' in corellian!

16 hours ago, Ophion said:

I think im happier with mandatory commanders too. They add some personality and character and an element of personal stakes to the game. Especially if you have had a commander 'retired' in corellian!

Soon we can start with Ozzel and retire him for Piett dual SSD.

On 1/29/2019 at 9:12 AM, Darth Sanguis said:

I suppose the argument could be made that having costs makes sure commanders with less powerful effects are still used, but at the same time, I've seen players use low cost commanders to great success.

Well, yes. In no small part because they used the points freed up by those cheaper commanders to take more ships, squadrons, and upgrades. And/or secure a bid. Removing points just flat out would render most of those commanders worthless.

Honestly, I'm seriously confused by this post.

I think my only concern is that Commander cards would be most positively impacted by a X-Wing style app cost system. The ability to change commander costs on the fly would fix SO MANY problems with the game. One of the core problems is that most commanders were released very early in the game to rapidly expand potential playstyles. Many of them were finalized without the hard data that only 4 years of competition gaming can provide. And that's why commanders like Tarkin, Mon Mothma, Screed, Leia, Madine and Tagge are rarely seen while Thrawn, Rieekan, Raddus, Sloane etc are staples.

On 1/29/2019 at 3:19 PM, Darth Sanguis said:

I think that's kinda where this idea originated. I can't tell you how many times someone has had to chunk out upgrades or even commanders of an otherwise solid fleet to make room for something. I've seen some good ideas in this thread. I certainly wouldn't mind the system getting a little attention.

Another option would be a generic, low cost commander for each faction that has no ability.

13 hours ago, codytx2 said:

Another option would be a generic, low cost commander for each faction that has no ability.

If we go lower than Ozzel the cheaper of the two epic play SSDs becomes legal. That's kind of a problem.

3 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

If we go lower than Ozzel the cheaper of the two epic play SSDs becomes legal. That's kind of a problem.

Except they put out a ruling that specificly prohibits the two "Epic" versions in standard play.

Still... I like the commander System as it is. Some point changes would be welcome though... And maybe something that makes Konstantine viable

1 hour ago, R4Pi3R said:

Except they put out a ruling that specificly prohibits the two "Epic" versions in standard play.

Still... I like the commander System as it is. Some point changes would be welcome though... And maybe something that makes Konstantine viable

What wording would they actually use, since what actually differentiates them to be "epic" other than their point cost ineligability, that wouldn't inadvertantly ban something that would be legal otherwise...

Arbitrary Hull Limit?

(Its a serious question - I moonlight as a rules writer, after all, and the "style guide" we have is pretty specific about certain things generally, and it can be tough without actually marking them for differentiation...)

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

What wording would they actually use, since what actually differentiates them to be "epic" other than their point cost ineligability, that wouldn't inadvertantly ban something that would be legal otherwise...

Arbitrary Hull Limit?

(Its a serious question - I moonlight as a rules writer, after all, and the "style guide" we have is pretty specific about certain things generally, and it can be tough without actually marking them for differentiation...)

Rereading my post, I recognize my wording was off as it might sound as they already did put out some rule, which they clearly did not.

Considering your question @Drasnighta , I have absolutely no idea. I also do not believe there will be the necessity for that. I just made the assumption, that some rule especially concerning those two variants (or 2 of the 4 variants that any huge ship might come with) might be the only way to ban them from standard play, IF there were to be Commanders for less than 20 points. (Which again, although I'd like a generic, I do not believe there will be any)

The question that leads to is, how will the points for any possible future huge "Epic" ships be calculated, if the only reason for the ExecutorI-Class to cost 381 is, that you cannot use it in standard play, even with the cheapest commander. (But the answer is probably it doesn't matter because there will be none...)

2 hours ago, R4Pi3R said:

9 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

If we go lower than Ozzel the cheaper of the two epic play SSDs becomes legal. That's kind of a problem.

Very good point. Make them ineligible by base size?

Academy Ship Captain; X points; Large, medium, or small base only.

Rebel Ship Captain; X points; Large, medium, or small base only.

Maybe not allow them to run titles on their ships or some other type of restriction for balance? Fleet size restriction? No unique personal?

Curious, I cannot remember saying any of this xD

33 minutes ago, R4Pi3R said:

Curious, I cannot remember saying any of this xD

I have no idea how I did that but when I muck something up I give 110%.

On 1/29/2019 at 2:24 PM, Admiral Calkins said:

It's times like this where I miss @Piratical Moustache . I disagreed with him on almost all his suggestions or predictions, but the threads he started fostered positive discussion within the community.

I tend to focus on something for a while, burn out and move on to something else. This Sector Fleet rules set is interesting but at the moment Warhammer 40k has my attention. When Episode 9 gets closer to release Star Wars will likely surface to the top of my head again. As for the thread topic I have always wondered why there isn't a generic Imperial and Rebel commander to represent that characters like Motti or Ackbar can't be everywhere at once.

Seems like the ideal scenario would be-

1. A generic commander for say 10pts that gives a very basic ability eg: refresh a card

2. Inhibit Executor from standard play somehow.

3. Rebalance some existing cards to make them more competitive. I think for example, Tarkin could drop to 28-29pts-ish and still keep cheaper options like Ozzel viable.

1 hour ago, ISD Avenger said:

1. A generic commander for say 10pts that gives a very basic ability eg: refresh a card

Suddenly the Interdictor title (with Brunson and Targeting Scramblers) got even better

I think this is a big reason why FFG released the rules format for 1200 point games. Take your expensive commanders and all the toys. (have your cake and eat it too).