Why not just bring negation? Not trying to be rude but there's a counter to this problem already in the game. One that is super useful against other awesome cards as well. If it's really that much if a problem bring a copy of Comm Disruption as well.

58 minutes ago, Jaric256 said:

Why not just bring negation? Not trying to be rude but there's a counter to this problem already in the game. One that is super useful against other awesome cards as well. If it's really that much if a problem bring a copy of Comm Disruption as well.

yup.

Actually, we started our own little Project, because the IACP made too many changes and was too invasive.

In our community, there are two strong opinions:

1. Keep Initiative as it is. Their argument: Don't change to much.

2. Make the overall Initiative Mechanism more balanced. Their argument:

It is extremely overpowered, if a player knows for sure, that he has the last activation in one round AND the first activation in the next round. E.g. IG moves out shoots twice, next round shoots twice and moves back. That way he can deal so much damage without being in danger at any time.

Let's say both players have 7 activations. The player, that was so lucky not to have Initiative in round 1, also is so lucky to have Negation. Then he knows for sure, that he is going last turn 1 and going first turn 2. Then his IG can go twice in a row, without being attacked in between. That's a game winner, by just being lucky.

And on top of that, he has Blaze of Glory, by just being lucky. He plays it after his last activation in Round 1. Then he can even go three times in a row, without being attacked in between. That's too powerful for just having luck.

I am undecided about the topic. Both arguments are good. And votes are circa 50/50. It looks like my vote will decide this, and I don't know what to do.

23 hours ago, Ram said:

Well, the solution has its merits though. It will be very board state dependant. If most ouf your figures are more or less out out of harms way, giving the opponent two acts in a row is no big deal.

That means round 1 only

28 minutes ago, Trevize84 said:

That means round 1 only

In general true, but it will also be a playstyle choice.

9 hours ago, Mandelore of the Rings said:

yup.

It's very hard for me to understand calling a card "overpowered" when another card that everyone is probably bringing anyway immediately puts a stop to it. At least with the Hunter cards everyone complains about, there's no hard obvious counter.

Again: It's not Take Initiative that's overpowered, but this situation:

It is extremely overpowered , if a player knows for sure, that he has the last activation in one round AND the first activation in the next round. E.g. IG moves out shoots twice, next round shoots twice and moves back. That way he can deal so much damage without being in danger at any time.

Let's say both players have 7 activations. The player, that was so lucky not to have Initiative in round 1, also is so lucky to have Negation. Then he knows for sure, that he is going last turn 1 and going first turn 2. Then his IG can go twice in a row, without being attacked in between. That's a game winner, by just being lucky.

So unless I'm missing something, the solution would be to increase the cost of Take Initiative, not as a nerf, but to make it unable to be negated and thus stronger?

No, because:

Let's say the player with initiative has 7 activations, the opponent has 8 activations. The opponent is so lucky to have a Version of Take Initiative, that can't be banned. Then he knows for sure, that he is going last turn 1 and going first turn 2. Then his IG can go twice in a row, without being attacked in between. That's a game winner, by just being lucky.

33 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

No, because:

Let's say the player with initiative has 7 activations, the opponent has 8 activations. The opponent is so lucky to have a Version of Take Initiative, that can't be banned. Then he knows for sure, that he is going last turn 1 and going first turn 2. Then his IG can go twice in a row, without being attacked in between. That's a game winner, by just being lucky.

Suggestion: implement a house rule where a fresh initiative roll takes place each round. Otherwise you're always going to have some scenario in which a player knows they'll have the first and last activation of subsequent rounds.

On 5/7/2019 at 11:32 PM, Eddie said:

I think it would help if the exhausted unit cost for TI would be 6+ or something like that

I think this could be a pretty simple and elegant fix for the problem. Making the player consider a real tradeoff rather than just exhaust a 2 cost fig.

11 hours ago, Jaric256 said:

It's very hard for me to understand calling a card "overpowered" when another card that everyone is probably bringing anyway immediately puts a stop to it.

When you are building your Command deck, and your deck always has to have TI due to it's power to swing a game in your favor no matter your army's composition, that is bad design. When the solution is to make 1 new Command card that is a hard counter to that card, that is more bad design. The overall design flaw is that TI is so powerful with such little cost to the player who plays TI.

I like having abilities that break the established initiative rules. That's a fine design space in a game where which figure goes first matters a lot. But those rule-breaking rules should have appropriate restrictions or costs. For example, there hasn't been much negative feedback about cards like Call the Vanguard, I Make My Own Luck, Ferocity or Jungland Terror; they are limited in scope and power.

If we stick to having TI actually claim initiative, I think the major issues of the card that should be addressed are:

1) the TI player needs to pay more of a cost than exhausting Threepio or a regular Imp officer;

2) the opponent may have a better counterplay than just "do I have Negation or Comms Disrupt or nah";

3) the power of having a figure activate last in previous round and first of current round needs to be tempered by whatever changes are made in respect to 1) and 2) above;

4) nerfing attack power of the figure that activates isn't exactly a fix, b/c you're still gonna have TI to score VPs from objectives.

Again, these are just my thoughts. IACP will only address TI if a majority of the community thinks TI is a problem. It may be trying to fix TI is worse than having TI/Negation in every Command deck until the end of time.

25 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

When you are building your Command deck, and your deck always has to have TI due to it's power to swing a game in your favor no matter your army's composition, that is bad design. When the solution is to make 1 new Command card that is a hard counter to that card, that is more bad design. The overall design flaw is that TI is so powerful with such little cost to the player who plays TI.

I like having abilities that break the established initiative rules. That's a fine design space in a game where which figure goes first matters a lot. But those rule-breaking rules should have appropriate restrictions or costs. For example, there hasn't been much negative feedback about cards like Call the Vanguard, I Make My Own Luck, Ferocity or Jungland Terror; they are limited in scope and power.

If we stick to having TI actually claim initiative, I think the major issues of the card that should be addressed are:

1) the TI player needs to pay more of a cost than exhausting Threepio or a regular Imp officer;

2) the opponent may have a better counterplay than just "do I have Negation or Comms Disrupt or nah";

3) the power of having a figure activate last in previous round and first of current round needs to be tempered by whatever changes are made in respect to 1) and 2) above;

4) nerfing attack power of the figure that activates isn't exactly a fix, b/c you're still gonna have TI to score VPs from objectives.

So as I've said, I don't think the card is an issue, however if you did want to make it less frequent, adding some kind of trait restriction like "spy" might achieve that purpose without making the situation worse. It'd also provide some incentive to bring spies and also incentive to target them. Might add a new dimension to the game. Plus if people are bringing spies, they're probably bringing Comm disrupt which further reduces the impact of TI.

25 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

Again, these are just my thoughts. IACP will only address TI if a majority of the community thinks TI is a problem. It may be trying to fix TI is worse than having TI/Negation in every Command deck until the end of time.

I feel like this is where I shout something about Boba Fett?

3 hours ago, cnemmick said:

When you are building your Command deck, and your deck always has to have TI due to it's power to swing a game in your favor no matter your army's composition, that is bad design. When the solution is to make 1 new Command card that is a hard counter to that card, that is more bad design. The overall design flaw is that TI is so powerful with such little cost to the player who plays TI.

I like having abilities that break the established initiative rules. That's a fine design space in a game where which figure goes first matters a lot. But those rule-breaking rules should have appropriate restrictions or costs. For example, there hasn't been much negative feedback about cards like Call the Vanguard, I Make My Own Luck, Ferocity or Jungland Terror; they are limited in scope and power.

If we stick to having TI actually claim initiative, I think the major issues of the card that should be addressed are:

1) the TI player needs to pay more of a cost than exhausting Threepio or a regular Imp officer;

2) the opponent may have a better counterplay than just "do I have Negation or Comms Disrupt or nah";

3) the power of having a figure activate last in previous round and first of current round needs to be tempered by whatever changes are made in respect to 1) and 2) above;

4) nerfing attack power of the figure that activates isn't exactly a fix, b/c you're still gonna have TI to score VPs from objectives.

Again, these are just my thoughts. IACP will only address TI if a majority of the community thinks TI is a problem. It may be trying to fix TI is worse than having TI/Negation in every Command deck until the end of time.

Maybe it's because I mainly play scum, but I haven't played TI for ages. Good alternatives can also change the situation. My opponent in the last tournament took my initiative at a really bad spot, but I had a Bodyguard to severely mitigate his output from that play (He even used Strength in Numbers). Then I proceeded to demolish his squad.

One option would be to only let the TI activation take a single action. It will take the edge of at least IG and Jedi Luke and also prevent a shoot and run.

Also, the cost of 0... I appreciate that if it goes up in cost it will not be possible to Negate, but I really would like inclusion of this powerful card to be a hefty investment and a calculated choice instead of a pure auto include.

9 hours ago, Jaric256 said:

I feel like this is where I shout something about Boba Fett?

Boba Fett? Boba Fett?? WHERE!

😉

On 5/7/2019 at 6:59 AM, cnemmick said:

I've mentioned this before on the forums somewhere, but I was of the mindset that increasing the prices of powerful Command cards was a good solution until @brettpkelly convinced me that, no matter what the cost, people will still take those cards.

I would look again a increasing CC cost, as I am not convinced that 'no matter what the cost, people will still take those cards'. To push the argument to its extremity, if Take Initiative cost 15 I do not think it would be an auto-include. In fact I think the opposite is the case, and it would never be included. Logically there is a sweet spot between 0 and 15 where it is still worth consideration, but is not mandatory. I've no idea what that cost is.

3 minutes ago, Alastairk said:

I would look again a increasing CC cost, as I am not convinced that 'no matter what the cost, people will still take those cards'. To push the argument to its extremity, if Take Initiative cost 15 I do not think it would be an auto-include. In fact I think the opposite is the case, and it would never be included. Logically there is a sweet spot between 0 and 15 where it is still worth consideration, but is not mandatory. I've no idea what that cost is.

I fully agree with this. The interesting point is where the superpowered cards cost enugh that you can actually only fit two or even one of them in your deck and then at the cost of basically not being able to take any other relevant cards.

Downside then being that the command deck becomes a bit more a game of chance.

What if Assasinate, On the Lam and TI all cost 6 for instance? What it they cost 8?

I think that there is definitely a cost at which those cards won't be chosen, but I think that's asking the wrong question and missing the point a little bit. To my mind, the question isn't "can we raise the cost to the point where it becomes a decision", but rather "is raising the cost to that point actually fun? Does it encourage more or less creativity when listbuilding?"

Say I'm playing a pure IG hunters list with standard rules. Your command deck probably looks something like this:

Pretty much mandatory:

• Assassinate (3), Tools (2), Blaze of Glory (2), Heightened Reflexes (2), Primary Target (1), Negation (1), Take Init (0)

Season to taste, depending on the squad:

• Tough Luck, Strength in Numbers, Second Chance, Price on their Heads, Stealth Tactics, Single Purpose, Blitz, Signal Jammer, Brace for Impact, Squad Swarm, etc.

A sometimes difficult decision amongst a bunch of good 0-pointers:

• Celebration, Element of Surprise, Planning, Positioning Advantage, Urgency, Opportunistic, Toxic Dart, etc.

So I've got a mandatory 7 cards worth 11 points. The 4 extra points are where I can spice it up a bit, maybe throw in a Signal Jammer or Strength in Numbers that will take my opponent by surprise, or double down on defensive cards (Stealth Tactics, Brace) or points (Price). Do I have room to throw in something a bit more situational like Single purpose or Tough Luck? Maybe a personal command card for someone like Onar? Then we come to the 0-cost, where maybe I've got 4 slots left and 8 cards that I'd love to bring. Decisions, decisions!

Now, taking it to the extreme, we'll pretend that Assassinate costs 7. Let's be honest, I'm still going to take the same 7 mandatory cards, only now it's 7 cards worth 15 points. There's no "spice" in the 1- and 2- cost slots, since I've already used all my points, and also no decisions in the 0-cost slots since I'm going to have room to bring every good card that I want.

I guess the change worked in that my hunter list is now a little less powerful, but it's also a whole lot less interesting . Every IG list you play against would have almost literally the same 15 command cards, which to my mind isn't great for the person playing IG or for their opponent.

3 hours ago, Ram said:

What if Assasinate, On the Lam and TI all cost 6 for instance? What it they cost 8?

VP manipulation about to be liiiiiiiiit

5 minutes ago, Jaric256 said:

VP manipulation about to be liiiiiiiiit

Haha, true story. Black market prices just jumped to auto-include status

Could we please stay on topic?

This is not about the IACP. Or about other possible solutions for the same problem.

It's just one of those three options:

- Keep the basic initiative mechanism as is / maybe reduce Negation to 0 points to make it negatable => more random

- ban Take Initiative / roll for initiative every round => totally random

- ban Take Initiative / the player, that had the last activation this round, does NOT have initiative next round => not random, but never two activations in a row with the same figure

Option 3 has gone through some playtesting lately and our testers like it.

But the question is just: Which of this three options do you like best? And why?

Option 3 has another plus: You lose one reason to field many activations. Thus, lists with less activations become more viable.