Would working out a suitable VP head start value for each deployment card be a viable alternative to trying to rebalance each card?

i.e. how many VP head start would you want to include Boba in your list as currently written? What about Saska? Naturally, plenty of figures would have a head start value of '0'. You would begin each skirmish mission with VP equal to the sum of the headstart values of the deployment cards in your army.

1 hour ago, birthright said:

Would working out a suitable VP head start value for each deployment card be a viable alternative to trying to rebalance each card?

i.e. how many VP head start would you want to include Boba in your list as currently written? What about Saska? Naturally, plenty of figures would have a head start value of '0'. You would begin each skirmish mission with VP equal to the sum of the headstart values of the deployment cards in your army.

Handicapping is an interesting idea, for sure, but I think it would be just as difficult to balance and just as contentious and change the cost of characters. What I've noticed over the years is people get attached tot the favorite unit, and they want the math to work out to favor that unit(s) and then have the math be against other units that are a threat. It's natural, it takes a great deal of discipline to make decisions just based on mathematically outcomes. I think if you were to handicap it would have to be decided on a per-list basis, rather than a per unit basis. The big question is, what's the correct handicap for SC? If that could be decided on, you are correct, it would be a good fix.

This is an awesome idea!

No changes during gameplay, only during listbuilding. The only issue is getting the VP gain correctly, but that shouldn't be much harder than recosting.

My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that 1 deployment point cost reduction is around 1.5 victory points gain?

This would mean that the, ballpark, estimate of point gain should be around:

Core: Single figure groups 25% cost gain, elite uniques 33% cost gain.

Twin Shadows: multi figure groups 25% cost gain, single figure groups 33% cost gain

Return to Hoth: Multi figure groups 17% cost gain, single figure groups 25% cost gain

Bespin Gambit: Multi figure groups 12% cost gain, single figure groups 17% cost gain.

Jabba's Realm: no modifier.

Heart of the Empire: Uniques -17% cost gain.

P.S. Yes, I believe there is a clear pattern to "power creep". I'm not sure if numbers are correct, but they should be close.

P.P.S Figure with "attachment fix" should be estimated as figure from expansion from which the attachment came.

I’m not sure it would be as simple as a % modifier by release wave. C-3PO, R2D2 and Gideon all see competitive play and don’t need any modifiers. Jyn pops up occasionally and might just be a ‘1’ headstart. E-Web might need to be 3 or 4...

myabe we survey the competative player base on a Facebook group?

If you limit gains to full point only (which I didn't write, sorry), these % should miss most (if not all) frequently used figures.

If VP bonus is calculated on a per figure basis, it should be an OK start.

Getting every figure "just right" by cost modification or VP gain is impossible at this point, sadly.

I'm not sure if surveys would help at this point. Having people use something like this and then dynamically changing the VP gain on a per figure basis may lead to something...

I'll need some time to think it through, but it seems VP gain addresses most of the issues I have with the games' balance at this point.