9 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I am all for “fixing” staleness. But in the ancient history of the 90’s, GW often fixed tournament predictably by making the lists selectively LESS restrictive. Not more restrictive.

The biggest thing needed in the game currently, for me, to improve variety and viability for units is a huge increase in battle card selection

3 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

Emojis always help - and sorry if I sounded too hostile, but it sucks when you’re super hyped to go to the first Worlds, but you wake up to “you brought a cookie cutter list and should feel bad” (not specifically you, elsewhere).

I don't think anyone here is blaming the players; mostly just people blaming the game.

Duplicate Post

5 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Yeah, no thanks on any of those. You might not like playing lists that are "the meta" right now, but I sure as **** wouldn't want to play a game where the rules you propose are in force. Besides targeting corps unit specifically, you'd also hurt swarm factions like the CIS, and probably usher in a series of lists designed specifically to meet your requirements, but not actually change the game that much. No thanks.

Not really. CIS doesn't need more Corps slots or anything for its swarm mechanics. They're built into the units themselves simply by having more models in each unit. That said, I'd love faction specific force requirements, if for no reason other than to let me run Luke, Leia, Han and Chewie together.

Of the ideas listed, 9 activation cap seems like the most beneficial to the game as a whole. I play a lot of systems and all the ones with alternating activations generally find themselves needing to something to enforce parity over time. Legion has a few decent solutions, but definitely feels like it could use more.

@TalkPolite

I'm with Alpha17 on this, please don't endorse any of these recommendations. Please.

"I'd recommend a tournament rule that caps multiples of units at 2.
• Troops should probably be capped at 4 corps units total.
• OR cap total units to 8/9, then you will see a greater spread of the other units. "

Here's a list of all the available units NOT used in any of the 8 lists:

Rebels:
Han Solo
Jyn Erso
Rebel Officer (unit)
Chewbacca

1.4 FD Laser Cannon
AT-RT

Pathfinders
Rebel Commandos (non-strike team)
Wookie Warriors

X-34
T-47

Imperials:
Vader
Imperial Officer (unit)

E-web Heavy Blaster
74z Speeder Bikes

Scout Troopers (non-strike team; and Sonic Charges)

GAVw Occupier Combat Assault Tank
AT-ST

Thought experiment:
Come up with a list (or lists) employing the un-used units that seem like good counters to one or more of the top 8 lists.

@Thraug
"I don't think anyone is surprised none of these made any list:

- ATST

- Tank

- Speeder Bikes

- Landspeeder

- ATRT

- T47 (lol @derrault)



All of the above are still overCOSTED. Once these are viable, many other units become useful (ion, FD, HH-12, etc)"

None of the top 8 players strike me as anything like what I'd consider a risk taker, or someone who strays from their comfort zone, so it doesn't surprise me that there's little variation from their bog standard lists.

Also, you really think that the Landspeeder is too costly? Considering it comes with some fairly tough range 4 potential and the possible combination of cover 2 AND armor (effectively neutering DLT-19's impact 1 @ range 4 and sniper units pierce 1) I'm surprised anyone would go there.

@LunarSol
"Of the ideas listed, 9 activation cap seems like the most beneficial to the game as a whole."

You wanna explain that? How is 'limiting' options a "benefit"? (Imagine a Confused Face emoji here).

It certainly doesn't sound fun.

@Derrault

Lol. I didn’t say I was, I’m just saying it’ll probably come up.

Also - that’s exactly what I’m talking about. We’ve been taking risks for a year and three months. This isn’t the weekend for risks, this is a weekend for what we all think we are comfortable with.

13 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Yeah, no thanks on any of those. You might not like playing lists that are "the meta" right now, but I sure as **** wouldn't want to play a game where the rules you propose are in force. Besides targeting corps unit specifically, you'd also hurt swarm factions like the CIS, and probably usher in a series of lists designed specifically to meet your requirements, but not actually change the game that much. No thanks.

I'd rather not have restrictions. But I don't think the designers are brave enough to do the points adjustments we need.

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

@TalkPolite

I'm with Alpha17 on this, please don't endorse any of these recommendations. Please.

"I'd recommend a tournament rule that caps multiples of units at 2.
• Troops should probably be capped at 4 corps units total.
• OR cap total units to 8/9, then you will see a greater spread of the other units. "

Here's a list of all the available units NOT used in any of the 8 lists:

Rebels:
Han Solo
Jyn Erso
Rebel Officer (unit)
Chewbacca

1.4 FD Laser Cannon
AT-RT

Pathfinders
Rebel Commandos (non-strike team)
Wookie Warriors

X-34
T-47

Imperials:
Vader
Imperial Officer (unit)

E-web Heavy Blaster
74z Speeder Bikes

Scout Troopers (non-strike team; and Sonic Charges)

GAVw Occupier Combat Assault Tank
AT-ST

Thought experiment:
Come up with a list (or lists) employing the un-used units that seem like good counters to one or more of the top 8 lists.

@Thraug
"I don't think anyone is surprised none of these made any list:

- ATST

- Tank

- Speeder Bikes

- Landspeeder

- ATRT

- T47 (lol @derrault)



All of the above are still overCOSTED. Once these are viable, many other units become useful (ion, FD, HH-12, etc)"

None of the top 8 players strike me as anything like what I'd consider a risk taker, or someone who strays from their comfort zone, so it doesn't surprise me that there's little variation from their bog standard lists.

Also, you really think that the Landspeeder is too costly? Considering it comes with some fairly tough range 4 potential and the possible combination of cover 2 AND armor (effectively neutering DLT-19's impact 1 @ range 4 and sniper units pierce 1) I'm surprised anyone would go there.

@LunarSol
"Of the ideas listed, 9 activation cap seems like the most beneficial to the game as a whole."

You wanna explain that? How is 'limiting' options a "benefit"? (Imagine a Confused Face emoji here).

It certainly doesn't sound fun.

There is something wrong with the game when the current top level players will only take a fraction of the things available to them in their respective factions.

None of the other unused units are HARD COUNTERS to anything that these players are taking. Points for points they are taking the most effective units in the game. These units, in this combination, offer the best destructive potential, the best redundancy, the best utility, and the best points scoring options.

20 hours ago, Dave Grant said:

I’m a big believer in take whatever you want and make it work.

Lack of variety, troop and sniper spam smacks me as being pretty dull, but each to their own.

Personally I find Legion to be very balanced with virtually all units playable, even in a ‘competitive’ game and I don’t think you “need” 10+ activations to do wel.

Part of the issue, I think, is it’s a small event and I get the impression most of the players know each other, talk a lot etc and in that situation people often come to a consensus about what is “best”.

Another is some people are more comfortable with “what they know” so maybe feel worried about taking some different units when they “really” want to win.

Good luck to all. Have fun!

No, its not balanced. Clearly the evidence from top tier lists is proof of the contrary.

7 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

The biggest thing needed in the game currently, for me, to improve variety and viability for units is a huge increase in battle card selection

If someone gets the bid, your point is mute.

If you get the bid, they can still veto to make sure some of the more exotic missions don't get played.

12 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

If someone gets the bid, your point is mute.

If you get the bid, they can still veto to make sure some of the more exotic missions don't get played.

True, but the most boring lists just so happen to be the ones that aren’t going to win the bid.

13 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

No, its not balanced. Clearly the evidence from top tier lists is proof of the contrary.

I don’t see how that constitutes evidence of an imbalance. If we go back to the lists entered in the contests that these players won from, they weren’t exactly varied then either. That doesn’t mean other options aren’t viable, it just means they didn’t explore them.

15 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

There is something wrong with the game when the current top level players will only take a fraction of the things available to them in their respective factions.

None of the other unused units are HARD COUNTERS to anything that these players are taking. Points for points they are taking the most effective units in the game. These units, in this combination, offer the best destructive potential, the best redundancy, the best utility, and the best points scoring options.

No, it just means the current group isn’t looking for alternatives. As @Dave Grant said, you can win bringing any kinds of units, it’s about how you use it, not what you brought.

Really you don’t consider AT-RT flamethrowers sufficiently dangerous to Stormtroopers? One is more than capable of wiping an entire unit off the board, and they cost just about the same. (80 points vis 79). And none of those lists are running Vader, so it’s not exactly a risky investment of points.

18 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

If someone gets the bid, your point is mute.

If you get the bid, they can still veto to make sure some of the more exotic missions don't get played.

No my point is the overall selection needs to be more numerous. As in, more than 5 cards. You basically know what everybody's cards are gonna be. If they had 15+ you could actually tailor your cards to be advantageous for your list specifically. As-is, it really doesn't matter at all whose cards you use cause you're both likely bringing the same exact cards.

That has made the game boring to me as the lack of mission variety to me, makes me wonder why we have them at all.

I wouldn’t mind more choices but the current system yields 125 different scenarios (5 missions, 5 conditions, 5 deployments).

Thats pretty good.

Mr “TalkPolite” has a very good point - the lists selected are generally low risk.

That doesn’t mean they are “better”, but more consistent. Which many good players value more than high potential lists that come with greater risks.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

True, but the most boring lists just so happen to be the ones that aren’t going to win the bid.

I don’t see how that constitutes evidence of an imbalance. If we go back to the lists entered in the contests that these players won from, they weren’t exactly varied then either. That doesn’t mean other options aren’t viable, it just means they didn’t explore them.

No, it just means the current group isn’t looking for alternatives. As @Dave Grant said, you can win bringing any kinds of units, it’s about how you use it, not what you brought.

Really you don’t consider AT-RT flamethrowers sufficiently dangerous to Stormtroopers? One is more than capable of wiping an entire unit off the board, and they cost just about the same. (80 points vis 79). And none of those lists are running Vader, so it’s not exactly a risky investment of points.

It is evidence, the top players in a tournament make their choices from experience playing the game. They look at units that are an effective cost investment AND that give both activation/tactical superiority. Snipers for example. Infinite RNG in this game is awesome, as most units have a max RNG of 18-24 inches.

To stop snipers we need:

• more terrain (but that just advantages other units instead)
• other infinite RNG options (such as mortars or more bombardment options)
• ambushing from off the board (the infiltrate units we have seen are too squishy to risk being deployed close)
• camo/smoke

They are looking at alternatives. They see what works and use their finite points limits to craft the most reliable and effective lists.

I won a tournament with triple AT-RT, so I think they are a decent unit. HOWEVER, you can't balance units in a vacuum. You have to take into account the totality of the game, the way it is played, how battles are actually won, and how different units interact.

59 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

It is evidence, the top players in a tournament make their choices from experience playing the game. They look at units that are an effective cost investment AND that give both activation/tactical superiority. Snipers for example. Infinite RNG in this game is awesome, as most units have a max RNG of 18-24 inches.

To stop snipers we need:

• more terrain (but that just advantages other units instead)
• other infinite RNG options (such as mortars or more bombardment options)
• ambushing from off the board (the infiltrate units we have seen are too squishy to risk being deployed close)
• camo/smoke

They are looking at alternatives. They see what works and use their finite points limits to craft the most reliable and effective lists.

I won a tournament with triple AT-RT, so I think they are a decent unit. HOWEVER, you can't balance units in a vacuum. You have to take into account the totality of the game, the way it is played, how battles are actually won, and how different units interact.

Lots of people play the game, but only a tiny percentage have the time or inclination to enter a tourney; if the subset that get through happen to play blah, it doesn’t tell us that blah is good, only that they played blah and happened to win.

Strike teams deal paltry damage for their point valuation, 132 points gets you ‘maybe’ 3 wounds per round. One single flamer AT-RT is looking at an average of 6 wounds, and that’s against something with a red defense die.

The RT does as much to contest an objective in a single attack as a strike team does for the entire 6 rounds. So...yeah, we definitely should take that into account.

It does tell us that blah is good, because they are choosing to take blah.

Strike teams deal suppression and reliable damage, at infinite RNG, each round. They are cheap, and offer more activations.

The RT gets focused down by a smart player, is a bigger target, and harder to manoeuvre. How about we compare the T-47 to a similar amount of points worth of top meta units. lol

I play in tournaments, and the reason I take certain things, is because I have tested other units.

If we keep your mindset nothing is going to change the current meta, bar better future units being released.

24 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

It does tell us that blah is good, because they are choosing to take blah.

That’s not exactly how it works.

Quote

The RT gets focused down by a smart player

So do strike teams.

Quote

If we keep your mindset nothing is going to change the current meta, bar better future units being released.

MY mindset is such that I own zero snipers. The way I see it the competitive mindset is the cause of the repetitive list.

15 hours ago, Derrault said:

I don’t see how that constitutes evidence of an imbalance. If we go back to the lists entered in the contests that these players won from, they weren’t exactly varied then either. That doesn’t mean other options aren’t viable, it just means they didn’t explore them.

Well, lets see.
These 8 lists have:
21 Rebel Troopers (out of max 24)
12 Rebel Commandos (Strike Team) (out of max 12)
17 Stormtroppers (out of max 24)
11 Scout Troopers (Strike Team) (out of max 12)

They have 23 and 18 Corp units (out of max 24).
They have 12 and 12 Special Forces (out of max 12) (plus 3 from entourage)
There is not a single heavy or support unit.

And you are trying to tell me that this is no imbalanced in this game?
Sorry, but no way 😁.

When 75% of all units come from only 4 types (Rebel Troopers, Rebel Commandos (ST), Stormtroopers, Scout Trooper (ST)), there is a serious problem with the game.
If you even add the Luke/Leia combination that all 4 rebel lists have, it becomes even worse.

If you take into account how many units there are (way more than in Armada already), it is really a bad sign that all 4 rebel lists are basically the same.

Watching the Livestream, I can’t help but to notice the clock is a far bigger factor than anything else. How can the World Championship not be made to go to round 6? Not a great measure of which person is bringing the best if you have to end the game several rounds early so consistently. Does everyone just plan on having a 3-4 round game?

3 hours ago, Tokra said:

Well, lets see.
These 8 lists have:
21 Rebel Troopers (out of max 24)
12 Rebel Commandos (Strike Team) (out of max 12)
17 Stormtroppers (out of max 24)
11 Scout Troopers (Strike Team) (out of max 12)

They have 23 and 18 Corp units (out of max 24).
They have 12 and 12 Special Forces (out of max 12) (plus 3 from entourage)
There is not a single heavy or support unit.

And you are trying to tell me that this is no imbalanced in this game?
Sorry, but no way 😁.

When 75% of all units come from only 4 types (Rebel Troopers, Rebel Commandos (ST), Stormtroopers, Scout Trooper (ST)), there is a serious problem with the game.
If you even add the Luke/Leia combination that all 4 rebel lists have, it becomes even worse.

If you take into account how many units there are (way more than in Armada already), it is really a bad sign that all 4 rebel lists are basically the same.

All but one will lose. Does that mean snipers and rebel troopers are bad most of the time? No it does not.

Definitive conclusions about balance can’t be drawn from tournament lists alone.

20 hours ago, lologrelol said:

No, its not balanced. Clearly the evidence from top tier lists is proof of the contrary.

The top tier lists are anecdotes not evidence.

They might BE the best units. But the top tier lists still aren’t the definition of evidence.

Something is not right in your star wars game when the most iconic star wars character is out of the table for most events.

5 minutes ago, naitsirk said:

Something is not right in your star wars game when the most iconic star wars character is out of the table for most events.

Yoda? Or Jar Jar? 😜

21 minutes ago, naitsirk said:

Something is not right in your star wars game when the most iconic star wars character is out of the table for most events.

Depends. I was against all the big heroes being included in the game at all.

Personally I find Legion’s activation system to be its biggest problem. The sniper spam is just a reflection of that.

24 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

All but one will lose. Does that mean snipers and rebel troopers are bad most of the time? No it does not.

Definitive conclusions about balance can’t be drawn from tournament lists alone.

What kind of argument is this? If all are using the same lists, it does not mean that 87,5% are bad. It just means that there is no variance in lists when all are nearly the same. And it means that everything else is just worse than these units.

If there are 24 out of 24 Special Forces in the 8 lists, and not a single heavy or support, it only means that the heavy and support are plain bad.

And if balance cannot be drawn from tournament games (and especially from the worlds), from what can you draw it? From fun games at home?
When i go to the worlds, i will take a list that has the biggest chance to win. And this result, with 8 so similar lists, really shows that there is a problem.
IF there would be a list that can beat this "meta" list, i am sure a few would have taken it. But all 8 players must have come to the conclusion, that this list is the best.