I'm proud to announce the IA Continuity Project! This collaborative effort is our attempt to organize the community in order to revitalize the game moving forward despite FFG's lack of official updates.

http://ia-continuityproject.com

And the project is hitting the ground running with our first set of recommended Skirmish game changes , which we're calling Season 1. All members of the IA Community are invited to discuss, test, modify and eventually vote in recommendations to the game as we play it in real life and online. Season 1 will last 4 months to give everyone a chance to participate and enjoy a new future of IA Skirmish.

A summary of our Season 1 recommendations (as of today, April 5th):

• Rule Changes
  • Spectre Cell (Skirmish Upgrade) is not legal for organized play
  • Hunter Command Card Restriction - While performing an attack, a maximum of 1 Hunter card can be played during that attack.
• Command Card Changes
  • On The Lam text change - Use when an attack targeting you is declared, before any attacker abilities, to perform a move.
  Deployment Card Changes
  • Deployment cost adjustments to many figures across all factions
  • Diala Passil Skirmish Attachment

Please see the Season 1 Announcement Post for more details.

So excited for this.

Slightly off topic, but related, does anyone have suggestions on how to print off modified cards? I've got the program posted here that let's you do the modifications, but I haven't found a satisfying way to turn those in to playable cards.

Current strategy is to print off a paper copy and tape it to an existing deployment card. I'd like to be able to print them directly onto something more permanent, but aren't sure how

Card sleeves?

Nice work. Obviously a lot of effort and thought been put into this. Be interesting to see how it pans out, and what the take-up is.

Some thoughts:

• Strongly recommend providing a downloadable/printable PDF with your rules changes only (no commentary).
• Seems very strange to change Elite Deployment cards only - no improvement to rSTs, but it's tricky to have a "Stormtrooper swarm" with only two units of eSTs.
• Some wording choices that don't really match FFG's style standards:
  • On the Lam should read "Use when an attack targeting you is declared..." (see for example Cross-Training or Alliance Smuggler's Slippery).
    • I'm a bit unsure about how "before any attacker abilities" works, too. I don't think there is an "attacker abilities" step (though the minutiae of how attacks work gets weirdly complex so I'm not sure) so what's included here?
  • Battle Meditation should read "Before you declare..." (see BT-1's Assassin or IG-88's Focused on the Kill).
• Force Throw should almost certainly push "another" figure, unless Diala is supposed to be able to push herself...? Which would be functional but kinda weird.

I will see if and how the Kensei Skirmish List Builder can be extended to (optionally) support these changes, and whether you can provide your own patch files for that purpose in future... though thinking about it the existing game data patch mechanism should work. I'll put a file together, and if you like can explain how you can provide this yourself for future seasons.

46 minutes ago, birthright said:

Card sleeves?

To clarify, I do put them inside of card sleeves after I tape them. It's better but it's be cooler if I could print right on to blank cards that work with a cheap printer.

Also slightly off topic, but related, is there a way to play with these changes on Vassel? I've never tried, but that would be a great way to do testing.

My personal play group will be excited to try this out for sure.

@Bitterman The PDF is a good idea. I'll get that whipped up sometime next week.

Right now we're focusing on getting Uniques and Elite Non-Unique figures that aren't viable back in the frey. We also want to make changes slowly, so that there's not so many changes that we can't get a handle on how everything interacts with everything else. Regular deployments aren't a priority but they won't be forgotten.

The first part of On the Lam ("Use while defending") uses the same wording that is on the card currently. Diala's Force Throw wording of "another figure" is taken from the Force Push Command card wording. Thanks for pointing out the wording on Battle Meditation though, that is clearer than what we have.

I'll gladly do whatever work you need me to do to have changes supported in your app! Just let me know how to do it.

Edit: The way the new OtL works is that it is played before the attacker uses abilities during the "declare attack" part.

If the attacking figure has a Beneficial condition, it is an ability used during the "mission rules" step of the declared attack. So the attacker would spend Focus/Hidden as part of the attack that fails due to OtL

The "once per activation" Tarkin weapon (and power tokens) are abilities used during the attacker's step of the declared attack. On the Lam would need to be played BEFORE a Tarkin weapon is selected or power token is spent. Likewise, OtL is played BEFORE the attacker chooses any Command cards to play.

Like previously with On the Lam, the attack is still performed and the attack fails completely. I'm quoting what @Fightwookies got from FFG about this: "If the attack is interrupted and subsequently has no target, no further steps should be taken and it is resolved immediately. This is treated the same as if the defender was defeated as an interrupt during the attack. The attacker cannot then spend surges or resolve any later parts of the attack."

4 minutes ago, Jaric256 said:

Also slightly off topic, but related, is there a way to play with these changes on Vassel? I've never tried, but that would be a great way to do testing.

I'm looking into methods to add an expansion to the existing IA Skirmish Vassal mod that has the changes. Until then, the best way to test these on Vassal is to play somebody else who is trying the changes out and communicate which ones you're using.

19 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

The first part of On the Lam ("Use while defending") uses the same wording that is on the card currently.

No, it doesn't? The replacement card image on your website says "Use when an attack is declared on you", which is neither what OtL says now ("Use while defending") nor what I think it should be based on every other card that does something similar ("Use when an attack targeting you is declared"). It's quite a minor difference but I think the established wording reads better.

21 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

Diala's Force Throw wording of "another figure" is taken from the Force Push Command card wording.

Again... no? The image on your website says "choose a figure", which is not what Force Push says ("Choose another small figure" - didn't spot the "small" bit either, previously). I mean, if Diala being able to push herself, or a large figure like a Bantha, is intentional, then that's up to you, but I'd guess it's probably not.

By the way - for both cards, your website only seems to let me want to download them in .webp format (whatever that is!). It would be much more convenient if they could be downloaded as .png format, none of the image editor/viewer apps I have know what to do with .webp. (It might be nice to make the .iacc and .iadc available for download too, that's up to you though).

26 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

I'll gladly do whatever work you need me to do to have changes supported in your app! Just let me know how to do it.

Sure, no problem, I'll get back to you shortly.

@Bitterman Oh my bad, I forgot we did some revisions right before we went live today.

I'll definitely fix the lack of "another" figure in Diala's Force Throw. The On the Lam wording doesn't use the original card's text because we're making it trigger before the attacker's abilities during the "declare attack" step. However, your wording says basically the same thing in what's been used before.

@Bitterman I've updated On the Lam and Diala's cards... and gave you a shout-out in the bottom of the post. Thanks again!

I'll work on getting some .pngs or .jpegs available for download. I guess WordPress uses its own image format now.

I've created a patch file for season 1 to use with the Kensei Imperial Assault Tools Suite . To use it:

1. Download the IA Continuity Project Season 1 Kensei patch file .
2. Find the folder where you installed the for Kensei Imperial Assault Tools (usually something like C:\Program Files (x86)\Kensei\Kensei Imperial Assault Tools Suite).
3. Find the Patches subfolder, and copy the patch file into it.

The various tools in the suite (in particular, the Skirmish List Builder) will use the new values. (Card art images will still show the old points values and text of course, but for the logic of building a list it will use the new values).

@cnemmick , I'll usually be happy to generate a patch file for you if you let me know about it, but if in future you want to do it yourself (if you'd prefer to keep control over ownership perhaps, or if I don't respond) you can create a patch file as follows:

1. From any of the tools in the suite, choose Tools -> Export Game Data... and save that file somewhere.
2. In that file, using a JSON editor or general-purpose text editor (e.g. Notepad), delete any cards that aren't included in your changes, modify existing cards as needed, add brand new cards of your own as appropriate. Stick to the existing format and it should be straightforward (or see what the file linked above does), give me a shout if you encounter problems.
3. Make the file available for download and tell people about it, with instructions similar to those above.

I might have a think about whether this can all be handled more elegantly, but for now this should work broadly as intended.

Kayn Somos at 6 makes me so happy

So with elite Storm troopers at 7, squad storm is gonna be lit.

i'd love a reason to play Vader's command card

As said in the other thread, I think this is super great and a solid start to a community driven IA scene.

There are though, two things that I am not too fond of, because of their weirdness in regard to the general rules and structure of the game: The Hunter restriction. It does indeed seem very tacked-on and weird. So you cannot play Assassinate and Tools for the Job, but Rangers can still play Assassinate and Coordinated Attack which in many ways is the same and Rangers are not to sneeze at already. Have you considered making it a general restriction instead, that only 1 CC can be played by the attacker during an attack (ie. from declaration to finish). This will stop any sort of CC combo during attacks, and 'perhaps' make room for other kinds of CCs if you can't really fire enough attack CCs during a game (big IF). I haven't delved too deep into the effect of a more general rule, but I dislike the specificness of the restriction.

Similarly the weird timing you propose on On The Lam. I don't like it. Changing it to work on declare, would still allow it to "cancel" Tools and similar cards, but would take away the option to look for the Dodge first and to further cancel all kinds of attack CCs. It would be slightly better than what you propose, but would work much more smoothly within the general timing structure of the game as is.

41 minutes ago, aermet69 said:

There are though, two things that I am not too fond of, because of their weirdness in regard to the general rules and structure of the game: The Hunter restriction. It does indeed seem very tacked-on and weird.

I Second that.

12 hours ago, cnemmick said:

We also want to make changes slowly, so that there's not so many changes that we can't get a handle on how everything interacts with everything else.

This is a very good idea. But I think, you are already to fast.

Banning SC is a perfect start. Recosting deployment cards is a good step too. Changing core rules, and wordings on cards is something I'd do after testing these (for quite some time). Leave that out for now, or you will loose most of the community, before you even really took off...

For those wondering, AFAICT, the Hunter ruling affects:

• Assassinate
• (Glory of the Kill, but I'm not sure it matters much)
• Heightened Reflexes
• Primary Target
• Tools for the Job

Some good cards there for sure. Using all of them at once would leave a bruise on anyone - but it must be quite unusual that you get to use more than one or two in the same attack. And, does the new rule solve the problem it's aiming to solve? Assassinate + Heightened Reflexes is great, but Assassinate + Element of Surprise has almost the same effect (Heightened Reflexes is more flexible in usage but costs 2 points instead of 0). Strong cards played at the right time will always have an impact, ask anyone who's ever said "AAARGH Son of Skywalker, FFS!".

I don't really have an opinion on it either way at this point; it does seem a fairly restrained and self-contained change and Hunter lists are well-known for their effectiveness, but it's also a change to a core rule that I'm not necessarily sure there was a great clamour for.

The designers said in an interview, that there are reference deployments, used as a reference to cost the others deployments correctly.

1. By game design standards, this is a good approach.

2. Elite Stormtroopers are one of those reference deployments. I would rather recost every other deployment, before I would change them.

13 hours ago, cnemmick said:

Edit: The way the new OtL works is that it is played before the attacker uses abilities during the "declare attack" part.

If the attacking figure has a Beneficial condition, it is an ability used during the "mission rules" step of the declared attack. So the attacker would spend Focus/Hidden as part of the attack that fails due to OtL

The "once per activation" Tarkin weapon (and power tokens) are abilities used during the attacker's step of the declared attack. On the Lam would need to be played BEFORE a Tarkin weapon is selected or power token is spent. Likewise, OtL is played BEFORE the attacker chooses any Command cards to play.

Sorry to harp on about this, but I'm still unclear. (It's possible that this is a wider problem with attacks being much more complicated than you realise, when you look at them really closely, rather than your OtL change itself).

So... the "Declare Target" step in "Steps of an Attack" on RRG p5 says that the attacker declares a target. The new OtL must be played immediately, "before any attacker abilities" - so before a Trandoshan Hunter's Relentless, for example, which is used "when you declare an attack", and it therefore does not take effect (assuming the OtL move makes the target invalid). I can even see that due to the Timing section on RRG p2, conditions like Focus (which according to the FAQ p6 are "treated as mission rules for the purposes of timing conflicts") come before attacker effects, so OtL comes after mission rules/conditions, but before attacker abilities, which is itself before defender abilities which is where the defender might play other Command cards. So, the OtL card creates an entirely new timing step, for that card only, implied only by the words "before any attacker abilities", and relying on an understanding of rules on at least three separate pages across at least two documents (plus the card itself).

I think I'm talking myself into believing it works as intended (so there may not be a question here after all!)... but it's non-obvious at first glance, at least to me. Wouldn't it be simpler just to play it at the same time as other defender's abilities, "when you are declared as the target of an attack"? That would still be before dice rolls, rerolls, and many "during an attack" abilities, so tones down some of the strongest effects OtL can have; and it means mission rules, conditions, power tokens, "when you declare an attack" Command cards, etc. all get treated the same way so it's easier to understand, there's less need for a forensic knowledge of obscure rules interactions.

I was about to ask what a "Tarkin weapon" is, too, but I guess that must be the mission-specific Tarkin Initiative Labs weapons as described on the mission card. Surely that's a mission ability, though? It's... literally part of the mission rules , not an attacker ability, and therefore should surely be expended in the same timing step as conditions, not decided after OtL like power tokens, in contrast to what you say here. Unless there's some ruling on this somewhere I can't find (not in the FAQ)?

Oh man, that is way too complicated. Don't start like that. Don't change the wording of rules or cards at that stage. Or at least keep it as simple as possible.

If you want to nerf hunters, then either just ban the merc version of Temporary Alliance, or just make all buffs work only in faction. Like:

Errata: "friendly figure" on any deployment or command card should read "friendly figure with the same affiliation icon".

It seems like just making OTL trigger before the defender rolls dice is a perfectly fine change. "Might be able to nullify my attack with On the Lam" has become part of the calculation in attacking a figure with the Smuggler trait and over committing command cards and the like becomes a riskier proposition. If the defender has to make a similar calculation in deciding whether to use On the Lam, that seems like a balanced situation. It is a good way for Smuggler to serve as a counter to more offensive traits. Thematically, it does seem like Force Users (or at least those Force Users with white defense dice) should have a similar command card or something that can at least nullify a ranged attack as well as OtL can nullify a melee one.

As for multiple Hunter command cards, that does seem a bit arbitrary even if it might promote a bit more diverse list building by making lower health less of point feeding trough. Personally, I'd rather see more command cards like OTL that can situationally stop one shot kills (i.e. avoiding attacks for agile characters like smugglers and force users or boosting blocks/weakening pierce for vehicles and guardians). Bounty hunters and snipers should be good at killing figures, especially when the situation or strategy (or whatever the random draws of command cards are meant to represent) lines up for them. Having an awesome hand of command cards and only being able to use one at a time sounds way less engaging then having an awesome hand and not being sure if you want to use them all on one attack because that Han might have On the Lam or the much cheaper guardian next to him might have some hypothetical "take the hit for an adjacent friendly figure" command card.

OK, A lot to cover here.

1. The hunter restriction

Before ToL Hunters were dominating the meta for almost 2 years. At worlds in 2017 Hunters represented 15 of the top 16 lists. At worlds 18 almost every rebel and mercenary list was still running hunters. In fact the rebel lists shared 13 of 15 command cards with the mercenary hunter lists (opportunistic and blaze of glory being unique to mercs, Rebels used Call the Vanguard and various other 0 cost cards). Only Vader was really able to compete on equal footing. A lot of community members have been asking for more figures to be meta relavent. The problem is that hunters are constricting the design space within the Mercenary and Rebel faction. It's very hard to justify taking a non-smuggler or non-hunter queen piece, since Han and IG are almost always going to be better. It's also hard to bring a queen piece that could at any time die to a single weequay pirate attack. Balancing around Hunters leads to a power creep that we're not comfortable with at this moment. The simpler solution is what we consider to be a gentle nerf to the hunter trait. We did making a general rule restricting attacks to one command card per timing window (on declare, dice rolls, mods, etc.) and may still consider this change in the future. The hunter package has been so dominant for so long that we hope the current changes add flexibility to player's command card decks.

2. The OTL change

We feel that OTL is a card that controls an opponent's actions even if you're not holding it in your hand. We think this card has way too much of an impact on the way a game is played, completely restricting how opponents approach Smugglers. At times the best play is to commit a big attack against a smuggler, it shouldn't cost you your focus, your on declare cards, and your dice roll cards. Not to mention the fact that your opponent can just save it if he rolls a dodge. With our proposed change it's still a very powerful card but not as punishing on your opponent's options. As to whether it creates a new timing window, OTL already existed in a unique timing window (after dice rolls, before modifiers, no other card operated in this window.) so we are not creating a new window, just moving OTL's unique window.

3. Stormtroopers as a baseline

We agree that there should be a baseline figure to balance around. The meta around the Heart of the Empire box expansion was the healthiest meta this game has seen so far. We're trying to balance around this meta, in which elite Stormtroopers have been irrelevant. 7 cost is quite aggressive in my opinion, but again season 1 is a time for testing and adjustments, not a permanent introduction of changes.

I should probably also detail some thoughts about our philosophy over all. I want to reiterate that we're pushing out these changes in what we're calling "seasons". We have not extensively tested these changes, we're asking for the communities help to see if these changes can open up the meta a little more. Our goal is to add a couple more playable archetypes to each faction. A game like IA requires a meta to change or else it will get stale over time. We feel that banning SC will revert the meta to hunters and Vader and we'd like to introduce changes to open that up for force users, imperial troopers/droids, and mercenary beasts. We are not trying to make every figure in the game meta-viable at this time as we feel that is an impossible task. The changes we're proposing are as noninvasive as possible to open up the meta as much as possible. Again i'll reiterate: all the changes we're proposing are only meant to last for the current season. If they don't work we'll scrap them. A season is a collaborative effort where we try to improve the game together. We'll also be making changes throughout the season if we feel there are obvious problems with the changes. We want to preserve the spirit of the game as much as possible, but with no new products incoming we feel that simply reverting back to hunter meta is not enough to maintain community interest.

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

1. The hunter restriction

As mentioned I don't have a strong feeling either way here. It does though seem unlikely that the restriction as written will move the meta much away from Hunters. As shown, it affects literally four Command cards - correct me if I'm wrong? You could use two for the same attack twice in a game at most, and three or all four in the same attack once in a game at most, if you have the right cards in your hand at the right time and decide you want to. (This won't be an option in every game, either). Is that going to stop people taking eWeequays or Han, when they're all still brutal in their own right, and still capable of using one Hunter card plus other non-Hunter cards in an attack? Was IG's popularity because he could use Assassinate and Primary Target in the same attack, or because he could use Blaze of Glory to put out up to four three-dice attacks with good surges and Command cards all in the same round?

I mean, I get the risk of trying to theorycraft everything, and in voicing doubts without even playtesting it first, and I don't want to look like I'm knocking the obvious hard work that's gone into what you've done so far. We'll see if it works over the next few months as people play games with these rules. I just think there's room for doubt over setting a precedent of changing a core rule to fix a specific group of units, without clarity on how the fix is actually expected to improve things. (Granted, it is a fairly minor change).

But sure, let's try it and see.

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

2. The OTL change

Fair point that OtL was already unique in terms of when it is played (it might reasonably be argued that that was part of the problem, though...).

Even so, I read the old card and I knew how it worked ("applying modifiers" is one of the listed "Steps Of An Attack"). I read the changed version, and I had to read three different rule sections in two different documents, and comments in this thread, to work out exactly what it did. I got there in the end but again it just seems like there's a simpler solution: simply "use when you are declared as the target of an attack", in the defender's step as normal. That would have almost (if not quite) the same effect, with no additional commentary needed.

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

3. Stormtroopers as a baseline

FWIW, I agree with you on this. FFG may or may not have used eSTs as a benchmark for all other units, but if they have, they've screwed up somewhere because eSTs are flatly not worth taking in a competitive list these days.

Perhaps I missed it, but is there someplace I can see some charts, or proof of some kind of in-depth work that justifies all these cost reductions? I'm not saying they are incorrectly arrived at values, though it does tell me power creep is alive and well in Imperial Assault despite the chorus of boos to the last time I suggested such a thing. How about some cost increases instead. I see you've increased Sabine by 1, and I don't discount that, but how abut Ezra I think he needs to be bumped up at least one point, if not two. Would there be less characters that would need a cost increase to balance out the available figures? Than this many reductions? And this only season 1. We already know Boba and RGC are too expensive. Also, what is the baseline? I was always told E. Stormtroopers and E. Probe Droids are the baseline, but there is a reduction of E. Stormtroopers by 2 points? This sounds like a recipe for just having bigger groups, which would slow down the game. It would be my earnest suggestion that a baseline is established and those figure are NOT changed, if the object of this project is game elegance and not a series of perpetual rule changes forever chasing an unattainable balance.

3 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

OK, A lot to cover here.

2. The OTL change

We feel that OTL is a card that controls an opponent's actions even if you're not holding it in your hand. We think this card has way too much of an impact on the way a game is played, completely restricting how opponents approach Smugglers. At times the best play is to commit a big attack against a smuggler, it shouldn't cost you your focus, your on declare cards, and your dice roll cards. Not to mention the fact that your opponent can just save it if he rolls a dodge. With our proposed change it's still a very powerful card but not as punishing on your opponent's options. As to whether it creates a new timing window, OTL already existed in a unique timing window (after dice rolls, before modifiers, no other card operated in this window.) so we are not creating a new window, just moving OTL's unique window.

I honestly feel if you change that condition, it should be turned into a 2 point card.