4 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

I can't imagine a scenario of introducing a pass mechanic that I would be in favor of.

4 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

too don't see how it does anything to "fix" the game.

Frequently I've seen it presented as only the army with fewer activations gets to pass, changing when the army with more activations "chains" activations, but I see that as almost more of an advantage for the other player overall. Plus, the relative points values of the units SHOULD account for fewer activations, by being harder to destroy/hitting harder.

4 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

I don't understand the argument in favor of a pass mechanic. Maybe people can explain how it would work.

If you're limited to one pass per round (because unlimited passes would be asinine, this isn't a staring contest), then it will just lead to a "pass-pass" situation, where both players pass, and the alternating activation order continues as normal.

I don't see anything to gain by passing. The player who doesn't want to pass, simply has to also pass in order to keep the game state as it otherwise would've been, thus negating any advantage to passing in the first place.

I dont think some of you quite understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.

You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass.

Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate.

The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.

Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.

Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go.

Just now, Kwatchi said:

I think this can only be solved by individual tournament organizers stepping up and adding some competitive list building criteria on top of the existing rule set - and that would take some guts because there'd be a backlash. Something to force players out of their comfort zone and make them to use other pieces. The greater community would see that and eventually mimic ('cuz netlisting is a thing), even though regular "fun" play lists wouldn't be subject to the more stringent conditions. I'd envision something along the lines of :

The Rule of Two:

1. Your 800pt tournament army list is only allowed to contain two of anything (unit, upgrade card, heavy weapon add-on, etc.), except for named characters where one remains the limit.

2. "Entourage" allows the taking of one additional unit above the stated limit of two.

3. Republic or CIS armies are exempt from this rule for corps and special forces units (until they get more options), but must split their selected units for any role slot if at all possible, and max number of corps units is 6.

Verbiage would have to be tightened of course. This will obviously not really fix the corps unit spam for max. activation but will force players to comfortable with all available types rather than just plunk done carbon copy Z6/DLT squads as nauseum with three sniper teams. In fact I'd expect all lists will still contain all six corps (three sets of 2) for good while, but it would still be a step towards improving the diversity of the tourney meta and doesn't require FFG to re-write anything.

In a few years the players will hopefully see there are other units worth playing and then the constraints can be removed.

My 2 credits.

The bold I do not agree with at all, as that is far too limiting. The fact that you're bringing 4 squads with Z6, or grenades, isn't really the problem, is it?

Before this game, I played Heroclix, and by nature of the IPs (comics-based stuff primarily), tournaments regularly featured unique limitations every week on what you could build or play. The official Tournament format (that of Worlds, etc. at conventions) was just 300-points, modern age. But, every store that I have ever played in rarely, if ever, just set-up weekly events that featured that official format.

Of course, that would not be possible in Legion because you only have 2-4 factions, but, I think FFG should vastly increase the number of mission and condition cards, which is where this game can "officially" feature the type of variance you're describing above.

Sure, tournament organizers can do anything they want if the players agree on it, for our first couple of "seasons" we used operations before just settling into the 800 generic format.

2 minutes ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

The bold I do not agree with at all, as that is far too limiting. The fact that you're bringing 4 squads with Z6, or grenades, isn't really the problem, is it?

Actually, that is the exact problem stated by the OP. The tourney meta is horribly stale atm, with everyone just spamming min Z6/DLT and 3 sniper teams in order to max the number of activations. Yes there are some small wrinkles, but the core of each army play exactly the same.

But as I said, there'd be a backlash. Too many have invested into this list mindset and their gained expertise & collection would be invalidated at a stroke; people are generally resistant to any change of the status quo to begin with...

3 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

Actually, that is the exact problem stated by the OP. The tourney meta is horribly stale atm, with everyone just spamming min Z6/DLT and 3 sniper teams in order to max the number of activations. Yes there are some small wrinkles, but the core of each army play exactly the same.

But as I said, there'd be a backlash. Too many have invested into this list mindset and their gained expertise & collection would be invalidated at a stroke; people are generally resistant to any change of the status quo to begin with...

Sorry, I think I've strayed away from the original post's issues

I think any tournament meta in any game I've ever played has been stale. It's why I haaaaate playing games with such a mindset, or in such venues where a "META" is present as a marble statue. Granted, I've never played major games like Magic, or what have you.

Heroclix was very much defined most often by 1-2 figures that dominated the meta until the company made some other equally imbalanced figure, or the previously used figures were rotated out of what they termed "Modern Age."

The Dragon Ball Z card game almost always featured the same 1-2 personalities dominating "major tournaments" or Worlds. Those types of players just shoot for the min/max advantage.

There are certainly a whole host of player types out there, and in most cases I bridge the gap between "play JANK and have fun" and "I'd like to win," but in every forum for every game I've played, there's always a thread about the meta and how much it sucks because it features the SSDD.

There are lots of viable solutions and ideas worth considering in this thread, and I think players should focus on implementing those, or considering those changes within their own local communities!

But, the responsibility mainly falls on FFG to correctly reflect the balance of Fewer Elite Units vs. Many Activation Weak Swarm Units through the game design and future units they release.

I really think the Veterans, Shoretroopers, Tauntauns, and Dewbacks, as well as to a lesser extent, the tank and land speeder, will shake things up.

23 minutes ago, Qark said:

I dont think some of you quite understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.

You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass.

Thanks, that's why I asked for clarification

I had a whole reply to this typed up, but it got eaten by the internet What I remember saying, I typed again, more briefly, below lol

Quote

Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate.

The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.

Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.

Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go.

I don't think the player with fewer activations is "forced" to move into a space to get shot to pieces. That's why we have terrain! Sure you want to get into an advantageous position for objectives, but that doesn't mean you have to run your troops into open space on turn one, just because you have to activate someone.

The fact that swarms of (presumably) weaker units within high-activation lists can overwhelm elite units in lower-activation lists feels very appropriate, to me. It's on FFG to properly reflect that difference, though. The value of an activation currently, seems way more valuable than the elite, high-cost units, which is the problem.

I think the main problem with high activation lists is mainly rooted in the cost:benefit ratio for Sniper Strike Teams themselves. Their cost compared to the value of an activation, is far too imbalanced.

13 minutes ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

I think the main problem with high activation lists is mainly rooted in the cost:benefit ratio for Sniper Strike Teams themselves. Their cost compared to the value of an activation, is far too imbalanced.

I wholeheartedly agree.

10 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

I only have 1 box of Commandos so I can't play more than 1 strike team, but I mainly hate playing them because they sit and do nothing for a lot of rounds because locally, we play with a lot of terrain, or at least I do. The more terrain the better for me. The way the battlefield looks and the complexity of it is about 40% of the enjoyment for me when playing the game. Sure they may zone out a space at the beginning of the game, but once enemy troops avoid that space and commit elsewhere, either your snipers have to displace and spend one or more rounds just moving, or they sit there and hope to get a shot off.

So you're saying a very cheap unit made an entire area of the board (probably a large one, give their range and the fact that if you have large amounts of terrain they probably have something large to deploy onto) into a total no-go zone? Sounds well worth the points.

9 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

So you're saying a very cheap unit made an entire area of the board (probably a large one, give their range and the fact that if you have large amounts of terrain they probably have something large to deploy onto) into a total no-go zone? Sounds well worth the points.

hmmm didn't say they weren't worth their points lol it was more about them being boring to play.

22 minutes ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

hmmm didn't say they weren't worth their points lol it was more about them being boring to play.

Maybe "have fun" with the other 756 points of your list? To me, playing the game is fun. If I lock down an entire portion of the battlefield with one cheap unit not even rolling any dice, that's fun.

10 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

I don't understand the argument in favor of a pass mechanic. Maybe people can explain how it would work.

If you're limited to one pass per round (because unlimited passes would be asinine, this isn't a staring contest), then it will just lead to a "pass-pass" situation, where both players pass, and the alternating activation order continues as normal.

I don't see anything to gain by passing. The player who doesn't want to pass, simply has to also pass in order to keep the game state as it otherwise would've been, thus negating any advantage to passing in the first place.

I think the best way to implement a "Pass" mechanic is the player with fewer activations gets X-1 passes. Where X is the difference in activations. The player with more activations doesn't get a pass.

Example: Player A has 8 activations. Player B has 10 activations. Player A gets X-1 passes (2-1) = 1 pass this turn. This is calculated at the start of each round. Let's say it's later in the game and Player A only has 4 activations and player B still has 10 activatoins. Player A will now have 5 passes.

Notice that if players are only 1 activation apart, their is no pass benefit.

Obvious testing should be made with this rule, but it's at least a start...

4 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

I think the main problem with high activation lists is mainly rooted in the cost:benefit ratio for Sniper Strike Teams themselves. Their cost compared to the value of an activation, is far too imbalanced.

These guys are not a problem. Seriously, I have been playing since the beginning of the game, and I own ZERO Sniper strike teams. My current list is a 10 activation (which is currently a very competitive number) list that runs 2 commanders, two special forces and a support and 5 core. These core units are either DLT, Flame, or even the ION trooper, as my meta is getting more vehicles with the tank and speeder. You guys are going to hard on this game right now. Give it some time, and diversity will present itself. I admire FFG for pushing out so much good content for legion on the schedule that they are on right now, and hope that they continue the great work. That being said, I agree that we need to get more core units (veterans and Shore Troopers on their way!) and more objectives/ deployment cards. These cards will easily change the meta. We also need more generic command cards as the more command cards possible, the harder the game is to predict. This game is hella fun, don't get worked up over snipers. I imagine we will see the death of snipers and DLT when shore troopers and hopefully mud troopers or other core units come out. In fact, how useful will snipers be against Droids? I imagine that they will be able to kill a couple per attack, but there will be too many for it to matter, which is a good thing.

The only thing I can say is that someone who thinks they can meta list a game in my area better be ready for annihilation from my extremely good dice rolls. I am the punisher of meta listers, smiting those who play the game without good will and fraternity.

22 minutes ago, Cleto0 said:

These guys are not a problem. Seriously, I have been playing since the beginning of the game, and I own ZERO Sniper strike teams. My current list is a 10 activation (which is currently a very competitive number) list that runs 2 commanders, two special forces and a support and 5 core. These core units are either DLT, Flame, or even the ION trooper, as my meta is getting more vehicles with the tank and speeder. You guys are going to hard on this game right now. Give it some time, and diversity will present itself. I admire FFG for pushing out so much good content for legion on the schedule that they are on right now, and hope that they continue the great work. That being said, I agree that we need to get more core units (veterans and Shore Troopers on their way!) and more objectives/ deployment cards. These cards will easily change the meta. We also need more generic command cards as the more command cards possible, the harder the game is to predict. This game is hella fun, don't get worked up over snipers. I imagine we will see the death of snipers and DLT when shore troopers and hopefully mud troopers or other core units come out. In fact, how useful will snipers be against Droids? I imagine that they will be able to kill a couple per attack, but there will be too many for it to matter, which is a good thing.

The only thing I can say is that someone who thinks they can meta list a game in my area better be ready for annihilation from my extremely good dice rolls. I am the punisher of meta listers, smiting those who play the game without good will and fraternity.

What happens when you come across the player who runs a meta list and is also extremely lucky? Who wins?

But yes, I agree with your main statement. Sniper strike teams aren't really the issue.

10 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

What happens when you come across the player who runs a meta list and is also extremely lucky? Who wins?

But yes, I agree with your main statement. Sniper strike teams aren't really the issue.

I have yet to meet someone with as many natural crits, one shot commander kills among other fun lucky shots as I can pull out my ****. They just seem to happen! And yes, Snipers and other activation padding isn't as big a deal as everyone is making it. Also: passing turns isn't going to help when I am in melee range and it is do or die time. Padding via passing takes away the whole MSU part of the game, which we will feel a LOT more of with cheap droids, altho there is a hard cap on every type of unit. I wish people would just accept it as part of the game, and build around it. they have snipers? ok, use an AT-ST and kill them round one. are they using DLTs? OK, run deathtroopers and don't die. Part of any game is building a meta that beats the meta. It doesn't have to be a rock paper scissors game, but you can build against the meta. Just put some time into thinking about what everyone plays, and run something that bashes them all. are they playing an MSU list with DLT? use minefields, limited Visibility, and disarray to force them to make weird moves and not have time for shots. Good play requires good thinking.

15 minutes ago, Cleto0 said:

I have yet to meet someone with as many natural crits, one shot commander kills among other fun lucky shots as I can pull out my ****. They just seem to happen! And yes, Snipers and other activation padding isn't as big a deal as everyone is making it. Also: passing turns isn't going to help when I am in melee range and it is do or die time. Padding via passing takes away the whole MSU part of the game, which we will feel a LOT more of with cheap droids, altho there is a hard cap on every type of unit. I wish people would just accept it as part of the game, and build around it. they have snipers? ok, use an AT-ST and kill them round one. are they using DLTs? OK, run deathtroopers and don't die. Part of any game is building a meta that beats the meta. It doesn't have to be a rock paper scissors game, but you can build against the meta. Just put some time into thinking about what everyone plays, and run something that bashes them all. are they playing an MSU list with DLT? use minefields, limited Visibility, and disarray to force them to make weird moves and not have time for shots. Good play requires good thinking.

Bolded 1: Passing turns gives the player with few activations a choice that they can take. We both don't know how this will change the game (because we've never tested it before). Saying it's meaningless is just shooting down a possible solution to this problem of MSU.

Bolded 2: Well, the game can and will get boring if everyone is running very similar cookie cutter lists. That's the whole point of this thread. People are sick of facing 4-5 Corps units + multiple strike team sniper squadrons. We are trying to figure out a solution and one of the negatives to bringing fewer, more expensive units, is that you get fewer activations. Maybe adding a pass mechanic may help these lists out?

Everyone is saying that that the Separatist faction is going to make snipers much worst, but they forget to mention that the elite republic is also getting added to the game which makes snipers ever more valuable.... Snipers will be valuable in 3/4 of the match-ups and who knows. They won't be dead units against elite droid units.

Bolded 3: I wish it was that easy. You don't know who's bringing what to the larger tournaments until you're actually there. Yea, I've metagamed my local store with 40K for several years, but once a tournament came around, the net lists came out at full force.

I just want to lend my support to the camp of more LoS blocking terrain, in most cases 1-2, 5 inch square LoS blockers in the middle of the table are enough to greatly break up the table and allow shorter range units to close the distance without always getting chewed up. This does a lot to bring list diversity back to the for.

I did not play at Adepticon, had the invite but 18 month old twins don't allow much travel usually, but the stream games did not have the large LoS pieces needed to pull this off. Temples don't count, they are to large and shallow to allow units to quickly pop in and out of concealment.

I absolutely agree that we need new missions to mix up the meta a bit. A killpoint scenario would be a good way, but also other missions which prefer tough units (vehicles!) over sneaky claim actions.

But I don't see that Legion or the Meta is in a bad place atm. I actually like the fact, that the core units are strong and used very extensively. I know so many games where you take the absolute bare minimum of crappy core units to save as many points as possible for the overpowered elite slots. And nearly every games top meta is built by taking the best unit to the limit, then the next best unit, then the next best unit, until you run out of points. The trick is, to balance the game, where the best choices aren't obvious.

Looking at the top placings of tournaments, we actually have some variety. Yes we have the obvious Twins lists which haven't changed since commandos came out, but at Adapticon for example a Han/Leia Chewie List came in second, Fleet Troopers and Pathfinders were included in the list placing 3rd and also multiple Veers/Boba/Snowtroopers builds as well as an Emperor list made it top 7. So it is not a fact, that you face the same copy paste lists in every game on a tournament. Also not everybody going to tournaments has the approach of playing the one popular list at the time. Some will try to counter metalists and many will just play what models they like / have painted. So there is a large variety already but we only talk about the few winning lists, also ignoring the fact, that David Kingsley is a really good player who prefers to play the wonder twins atm and he would probably also get top placements with a different list.

What I see as a bit of a problem at the moment are sniper teams. As stated already, they are cheap thus helping the unit count go up, and very safe to play. They only get countered by other snipers and Veers/Leias 1-pip cards. Once you won the sniper war, you have the unit activation advantage and a very reliable wound/kill every round. They are a major reason why some more expensive units are almost unplayable (Deathtroopers). I am looking forward to the smoke greanades and hope they help counter snipers a bit (presumably placing los blockers). Also The mortars may help here, though I don't think that crit fishing is a reliably way of getting rid of sniper teams. As for activation delaying / passing options, I bet there will be some way in the future. They introduced it in Imperial Assault and in Armada, sooner or later it will come for Legion. My money is on a command upgrade (5P-ish) where you can pass if you have fewer activations left. It is exhaustable and refreshes each round.

15 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

The Rule of Two:

1. Your 800pt tournament army list is only allowed to contain two of anything (unit, upgrade card, heavy weapon add-on, etc.), except for named characters where one remains the limit.

Absolutely not. No offense, but this is a terrible idea. It'll cause backlash and won't really gain anything in return. It would force people to include units they simply don't want (I hate snow troopers, and am pretty "meh" on shoretroopers, so I guess I can't have a legal army?), and it will make most people's collections completely unplayable. Worse, it won't fix anything because you're not reducing the major problem child here (strike teams) by all that much. I can easily see your "rule of two" just becoming the new staple for competitive lists, 2 of this unit, 2 of this, 2 of this, so on.

Not to be overly dramatic, but such a rule would kill any desire I have to play in tournaments, and I don't even play strike teams.

As for the pass mechanic, I'm still not seeing the advantages. It adds another layer of complexity ( requiring players to keep track of who has more units at any given moment) and really wouldn't fix anything besides not being "forced" to run into range. Since you are under no obligation to move, I really don't see this as an issue either. Objectives based game, fine, but just give your guys a dodge/aim/whatever and standby, and wait for your opponent to move in. Put Overwatch on for maximized standby potential. Objectives shouldn't force you to rush in and die. Let the enemy do that, then just kill them on the objective. Generally works for me.

Another possible solution against sniper teams is to increase the minimum points for a standard game up to 1000? This will allow for the more expensive sniper counters to be fielded....

The problem I have with pass mechanic is when Player A brings an elite team, they have better stats. vs player B. Now if you give player A the passes, he not only is getting the activations that B paid for but also his stronger attack and defense dice. That seems like a double dip.

I'd be all for seeing a command upgrade card both sides could take for points that is exhaustible but gives a pass like ability. This would mean not paying for a full unit but gaining a bit of the pass benefits for armies.

Any pass mechanic we might eventually see would likely be similar to the pass "mechanic" in Armada. In Armada, there is an upgrade card called Strategic Advisor. It's an Officer upgrade that can only be attached to a large based ship. The text is "When it is your turn to activate, you may exhaust this card to pass your turn (your opponent activates a ship instead)." Armada has no Recover equivalent, so this is a once per game thing and requires a large ship, which is something not all fleets have. In other words, it's a limited option.

I'm imagining that Legion could have a similar upgrade card. The wording and points costs would need to be tweaked, but this is a general idea. At most, you could have two of these in an army.

• "Hold Your Positions"
• Command, 15points
• Exhaustible, "When you would activate this unit, instead shuffle it's order token back in the order pile and end your activation."

9 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

Another possible solution against sniper teams is to increase the minimum points for a standard game up to 1000? This will allow for the more expensive sniper counters to be fielded....

You already can field the expensive units in 800 point games. Keeping the force org chart the same, the only other options to field are support and heavies in meta lists. Sure as an imperial player you could more easily field an ST, but even then you're still banking on crits to deal damage and can only kill one member of the team. If the ST becomes common, then rebel AT weapons will become more common, but are going to take the form of laser cannon RTs which can gang up and reliably kill an ST.

Just now, R3dReVenge said:

Another possible solution against sniper teams is to increase the minimum points for a standard game up to 1000? This will allow for the more expensive sniper counters to be fielded....

Increasing the points limit isn't the best solution in my opinion. At least one of the Operations has a 1000 point list option, with a different Force Org chart which I'll post below, showing FFG (at least right now) thinks that 1000 points needs a different chart than 800. 1000 is likely to exasperate spam rather than encourage inclusion of more expensive units, and allow for the sniper spam lists to fit in units specifically to counter sniper counters.

Quote

Maximum 1000 points

• 1-3 Commander units

• 4-6 Corps units

• 0-3 Special Forces units

• 0-3 Support units

• 0-3 Heavy units

• 0-2 Operative units

Just now, Gridloc said:

The problem I have with pass mechanic is when Player A brings an elite team, they have better stats. vs player B. Now if you give player A the passes, he not only is getting the activations that B played for but also his stronger attack and defense dice. That seems like a double dip.

I'd be all for seeing a command upgrade card both sides could take for points that is exhaustible but gives a pass like ability. This would mean not paying for a full unit but gaining a bit of the pass benefits for armies.

Leia's "Somebody Has to Save Our Skins" already gives one player the ability to effectively emulate their opponent having taken a "pass" activation.

Would strike team should have the same keyword as mortar or heavy gun from the Shore and Veteran ?

I mean, if you can't take a strike team without taking a regular commando/scout squad, this would nerf the overall spam a lot.

Even me could be a bit sadden by it (as I am playing 2-3 saboters on regular basis). But this could lead to a "less sniper", and more diverse (and perhaps sane) "meta" ? (gosh I hate this word, 'cause my list work really well against the meta if the opponent is not a freaking lucky dice roller )

1 minute ago, RaevenKS said:

Would strike team should have the same keyword as mortar or heavy gun from the Shore and Veteran ?

I mean, if you can't take a strike team without taking a regular commando/scout squad, this would nerf the overall spam a lot.

Even me could be a bit sadden by it (as I am playing 2-3 saboters on regular basis). But this could lead to a "less sniper", and more diverse (and perhaps sane) "meta" ? (gosh I hate this word, 'cause my list work really well against the meta if the opponent is not a freaking lucky dice roller )

This is another possible solution. I think the best option is to #1: Create a way to punish lists that run a lot of activations. #2: Create a hard counter unit for snipers. I'd assume vehicles would be this option, but the vehicles are all overcosted in this game (hence my push to increase max standard points).

Just now, R3dReVenge said:

This is another possible solution. I think the best option is to #1: Create a way to punish lists that run a lot of activations. #2: Create a hard counter unit for snipers. I'd assume vehicles would be this option, but the vehicles are all overcosted in this game (hence my push to increase max standard points).

I run 3 AT-RT flamer on regular basis too. They are not "too much overcosted".

And I even have an AT-ST Empire list with 10 activations which works really well against "the Meta".

Moreover, the main problem, imo, of sniper, is the fact they are neither "Cumbersome" (I mean, it's a sniper. It takes time to aim properly from what I know) or its range is 1-X. Imo, a 2-X or 3-X would allow a lot of plays around them.