https://ia-continuityproject.com/2019/04/12/intelligence-leak-reviewing-your-season-1-feedback/

That was a good. I appreciate the explanation and effort. It still shows me how bad the power creep has gotten. So, maybe the change for E. Stormtroopers just needs to be to add a blue die. Blue-Blue-Green, and then keep their deployment cost the same. I'll run the numbers on that I a little bit.

One idea for Somos could be to increase dep cost to 7 but give him Advanced Com System ability. This way he loses synergy with DT and partially with SiN but he can effectively be exploited for focusing troopers. Also, tokens from Thrawn and maybe Clawdite, plus extra attacks from Palp may bring more reliable focus for troopers. Perhaps this might bring Storms back into the meta.

For the Rebel Troopers, just spitballing but...would it be too much for them if Get Into Position cost just one action, instead of two? (Since it's an action, they would have to spend the points during that action.. It becomes a Move-and-Focused-Attack, Aimed-Attack-Then-Move, or Regular-Attack-Normal-Movement type figure.) Could be interesting tactically, gives them a relatively unique play style, helps reduce/eliminate the dreaded two surge roll, and is probably not at all overpowered in the current meta.

I like some of the changes you're considering. You need to work on the Assassinate wording though, as I don't think it works, like you think it work. Speaking of Assassinate, and it goes back to my previous hessitation to the change: I think Alliance Rangers will become the best hunter unit and I think that is plain wrong. It already kinda was.

I may (and probably is) biased, since I mostly play Scum myself. But getting an archtype, and then see another faction end up doing it better is sort of annoying. The fact that Rangers will be able to combine hunter cards and trooper cards but hunter won't be able to combine hunter cards seem counter intuitive. If you decide to go with Assissinate as an exclusive, maybe a Scum faction icon on it? It would tone down hunters in general and keep the archtype mostly Scum based.

I believe problem with Assassinate is that it is a 100% reliable card. You can reliably get the kill and play the card only when you really need it. I guess that changing the trigger of the card to step 1 of the attack may induce hunter players to take the risk of wasting the card if the attack is unlucky. Pretty much like On the Lam, it looks to me both cards suffer the same problem: "too strong at zero risk", that is too good even at 3 PTS.

1 hour ago, aermet69 said:

I like some of the changes you're considering. You need to work on the Assassinate wording though, as I don't think it works, like you think it work. Speaking of Assassinate, and it goes back to my previous hessitation to the change: I think Alliance Rangers will become the best hunter unit and I think that is plain wrong. It already kinda was.

I may (and probably is) biased, since I mostly play Scum myself. But getting an archtype, and then see another faction end up doing it better is sort of annoying. The fact that Rangers will be able to combine hunter cards and trooper cards but hunter won't be able to combine hunter cards seem counter intuitive. If you decide to go with Assissinate as an exclusive, maybe a Scum faction icon on it? It would tone down hunters in general and keep the archtype mostly Scum based.

I've never liked that Alliance Rangers had the hunter keyword. That didn't seem particular thematic based on the hunter cards. It seems like a keyword meant for the mercenary faction. I was going to say there are no trooper Mercenary units, but then I remember that the Wing Guards are.

Point of clarification: have the regular deployments also decreased or is that second number the figure cost for the elite deployment?

I had assumed it was the non elite deployment cost, but now I think I might be mistaken

3 hours ago, Jaric256 said:

Point of clarification: have the regular deployments also decreased or is that second number the figure cost for the elite deployment?

I had assumed it was the non elite deployment cost, but now I think I might be mistaken

The second number is figure cost. Only the elite deployments changed.

1 minute ago, DTDanix said:

The second number is figure cost. Only the elite deployments changed.

Aww. A set of regular storms at 3/4 would make nice objective runners.

If anything, the regs would be 5/2 to make them pretty similar to reg riots in cost/utility/health.

1 hour ago, DTDanix said:

If anything, the regs would be 5/2 to make them pretty similar to reg riots in cost/utility/health.

At 5, I probably don't bring them. Drop down even further down to 4 and I might fit them in if I have the space.

At 3, I probably bring a set with every list

" Please send us your playtesting results with this kind of army and Command deck build."

I've played two rounds with a 6 point Somos and don't think it needs to be raised. Being able to chain into Somos from a DT is part of what makes him viable in lists.

Can you pull off shenanagins? Sure. But you have to plan it out way in advance and then execute it. There should be significant rewards for superior positioning, planning, and execution.

For testing purposes: I posted a thread for the Somos list in question. I played against the rebel Trooper list I also posted. Won a close game. Also played against this list and that rebel Trooper list in a 3 way match as a Jedi list and lost to the rebel troopers.

On 4/16/2019 at 4:12 PM, Jaric256 said:

At 5, I probably don't bring them. Drop down even further down to 4 and I might fit them in if I have the space.

At 3, I probably bring a set with every list

recosting goal should be to make it possible to bring units, not to decrease anything to the point that it's is an auto include. that just creates more problems, especially with generic units like storm troopers that can be spammed. if 5 is where they are worth discussing as an option, even if you go a different route, then they should probably be at 5.

1 hour ago, Fightwookies said:

recosting goal should be to make it possible to bring units, not to decrease anything to the point that it's is an auto include. that just creates more problems, especially with generic units like storm troopers that can be spammed. if 5 is where they are worth discussing as an option, even if you go a different route, then they should probably be at 5.

The problem with ST at 5 is you have another obvious set of objective runners at that same price point that are superior. (regular riots) so there still isn't much of a role for them.

3 is probably a bit much, but 4 on the other hand I really start to consider bringing a set to run objectives and block line of sight for more important figures (which really is exactly what regular old Stormtroopers do).

Regarding the potential to be spammed, I'd be perfectly happy to play against a list where half the deployment points go to units that really aren't much of a threat to my figures. Also, blast becomes useful compared to where it is currently (basically irrelevant). Storm troopers are designed to be spammed. They're the zerglings of the star wars universe.

My biggest problem with making spam units super viable is a more practical one. If the game lasts 65 minutes and you're waiting for your opponent to move and shoot with 12 different regular stormtrooper figures each round, the game is most likely either going to feel too short or too rushed (particularly if said opponent is... a bit less than quick with his/her moves).

2 hours ago, ManateeX said:

My biggest problem with making spam units super viable is a more practical one. If the game lasts 65 minutes and you're waiting for your opponent to move and shoot with 12 different regular stormtrooper figures each round, the game is most likely either going to feel too short or too rushed (particularly if said opponent is... a bit less than quick with his/her moves).

Agreed. While I think the cost reductions the IACP has done, look interesting, I think it's worth looking into how, with simple adjustments in stats, that they could become viable at their current cost.

If you add 2 hp to stormtroopers and then a little something, maybe Pierce 1, they become much more in line with Riots and Jets.

I suppose my issues with raising the health, is that Stormtroopers are almost by definition little more than warm bodies. Heck, Ewoks with stone tools kill them with little effort.

On 4/25/2019 at 3:15 PM, Jaric256 said:

I suppose my issues with raising the health, is that Stormtroopers are almost by definition little more than warm bodies. Heck, Ewoks with stone tools kill them with little effort.

Yes, and it was one of the low points of an otherwise great movie. I started playing IA right after Twin Shadows as announced. Stormtroopers used to be more problematic, but now, with all the power creep, they are just one-shot mooks, and that's depressing, but not unexpected.

A "tabletop admiral" type list building tool would be very helpful for new players. It would save having to look at the PDF and then use tabletop admiral for the official prices. I don't know how hard that would be though... just sayin' Maybe the tabletopadmiral creator could easily add IACP costs to this site?

Really enjoyed my IACP Jedi list. Next time I'm gonna run a reinvigorated wookies list!

On 4/25/2019 at 11:33 AM, Jaric256 said:

The problem with ST at 5 is you have another obvious set of objective runners at that same price point that are superior. (regular riots) so there still isn't much of a role for them.

rSTs have some advantages over rRiots. 3 figures to 2 with ranged attacks instead of melee. Regular riots aren't surviving a ton of attacks at 5 health with a block token, depending on who is attacking them. there's at least a discussion to be had at cost 5