The only thing I thing that the game lack for the balance are better constructed tables. Way to climb, putting objectives on rooftop, saying that when you are intercepting, you have to be intercepting at range 1 ON THE SAME FLOOR, etc.

Getting ride of the "blue players come with all cards to create battle" but more something like "each player nominate 2 cards of each type, and you create the "decks" with them". This will allow a less "one way" before match set-up.

The pass mechanic would be cool too for the players with less activations.

And as @TauntaunScout said : the blue player may be the one with less activation.

This way, you are correcting the "bid" issues where it is more interesting to have up to 10 points less than 800, than to be closer to a 800...


I am from those who think that no unit is unbalanced or utterly broken (in a good or a bad way). But lot of easely impactful thing around the minis themselves can be touch to balance the game.

4 hours ago, Derrault said:

It’s basically coincidence at this point.

How many lists that were near identical to some of the top 8 do you think competed in the prior tournaments and went nowhere hmm? Many. And they lost to players not running the “meta”.

As @TalkPolite is fond of noting, these players put a lot of time and effort into learning to play one particular list;

If they had chosen to work with a different list, that’s what would be up there. It’s not the strike teams, it’s the players. To say otherwise discounts the reality that many players using strike teams in the lower levels lost to those not using them, and it is basically saying: but for strike teams, the top 8 would be entirely different players.

In with you on that, however currently the battle cards favour having a large amount of activations if possible and armour doesn't gets look in because its less effective.

What is more telling is that the people winning tournaments are choosing not to bring Han solo, Jyn erso, everyone on the rebel side brings Wonder Twins, z6 troopers and strike teams. There was one fleet trooper unit.

I'm actually quite happy for the imperials at the moment as there is room for more variety at the top level. At a store meta level though it's hardly that important, but at high level play if hope for more variety , especially on the rebel side, but when these players all choose the same option for the spec ops slots it's quite telling

21 minutes ago, syrath said:

In with you on that, however currently the battle cards favour having a large amount of activations if possible and armour doesn't gets look in because its less effective.

What is more telling is that the people winning tournaments are choosing not to bring Han solo, Jyn erso, everyone on the rebel side brings Wonder Twins, z6 troopers and strike teams. There was one fleet trooper unit.

I'm actually quite happy for the imperials at the moment as there is room for more variety at the top level. At a store meta level though it's hardly that important, but at high level play if hope for more variety , especially on the rebel side, but when these players all choose the same option for the spec ops slots it's quite telling

True enough, your basic infantry is useful for every objective, but it would be strange if they weren’t right?

It would be interesting to know what other options the finalists actually have to work with. Ie do they even have the 6 fleet troopers to work with?

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

True enough, your basic infantry is useful for every objective, but it would be strange if they weren’t right?

It would be interesting to know what other options the finalists actually have to work with. Ie do they even have the 6 fleet troopers to work with?

I’d doubt it. For reasons of real world CBA.

By the time I got thThrough my sixth unit of snow troopers I was going batty.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

True enough, your basic infantry is useful for every objective, but it would be strange if they weren’t right?

It would be interesting to know what other options the finalists actually have to work with. Ie do they even have the 6 fleet troopers to work with?

I'm not talking 6 fleet troopers we are talking at most 1 spec ops unit that wasn't a strike team from all 8 finalists that wasn't brought in using Entourage, even then I'm not sure that player brought 3 spec ops. Which means that out of all of the possible options

Wookie warriors

Commando full team

Scout trooper full team

Death troopers

Pathfinders

Imperial royal guard

Commando strike team

Scout trooper strike team

Only the strike teams were chosen for those 23 of 24 spec ops slots. That is quite telling. Not only that but the fact that those spec ops units were chosen also over support and heavies as well. The 8 top players chose to limit themselves to 25% of the spec ops options and also ignored the two support and the heavy options. You can't say that this was down to players playing with what they are comfortable with on the rebel side , they have had more than enough time with the majority of those units to formulate strategies for them.

So given there has been no innovation (at this level)on the rebel side since strike teams were released. Ie we are still stuck at Luke Leia z6 troopers and 3 strike teams for competitive play it's hard to see the rebel game has progressed in the last year.

From an outsider looking in the pov that could be taken is that the game is stale that the majority of units used were from early release and none of the newer units outside the imperial commanders/operatives are worth having in a competitive environment. I know that is not exactly true, especially with Sabine and Bossh incoming. How long, though, till they end up ignored in favour of the old guard units, is my concern. Rebel Veterans already look to pricey to replace Z6's however I can only hope

Just to confirm I'm not doom and gloom about the state of the game, in fact for one year old I'm impressed with it, I just wish that the first World Championship had more variety on the choice of rebel side, which really came down to what flavor of strike team do you want to bring along, with most opting for snipers and the lone Daniel with his sabateur list, with the upcoming local championships coming up just how many games are we going to play against wonder twins, z6s and snipers.

This is not meant as a detriment against the game nor the players. As I said I'm confident that FFG will look and adjust and also not knee jerk react to the fact that snipers were chosen pretty much above all, after all the other units may just be under represented in this 8 man group., If that's the perfect army for rebels so be it, I just hope I'm not saying the same thing about Rebels next year or it's going to be a boring year and I'll maybe switch to clones.

I played sabs strike teams since their release. Tho, I almost wish now that FFG just say "ok, strike teams were a flawed design, we are : a) correcting it - need to have at least a full squad of commando/scout to take strike team, b) deleting strike team permanently from the game.

Even if I understand the concept, and like it, behind strike teams, they are what is killing spec force slot right now.

1 hour ago, syrath said:

Only the strike teams were chosen for those 23 of 24 spec ops slots. That is quite telling. Not only that but the fact that those spec ops units were chosen also over support and heavies as well. The 8 top players chose to limit themselves to 25% of the spec ops options and also ignored the two support and the heavy options. [...]

So given there has been no innovation (at this level)on the rebel side since strike teams were released. Ie we are still stuck at Luke Leia z6 troopers and 3 strike teams for competitive play it's hard to see the rebel game has progressed in the last year [...] which really came down to what flavor of strike team do you want to bring along, with most opting for snipers and the lone Daniel with his sabateur list, with the upcoming local championships coming up just how many games are we going to play against wonder twins, z6s and snipers.

42 minutes ago, RaevenKS said:

I played sabs strike teams since their release. Tho, I almost wish now that FFG just say "ok, strike teams were a flawed design, we are : a) correcting it - need to have at least a full squad of commando/scout to take strike team, b) deleting strike team permanently from the game.

Even if I understand the concept, and like it, behind strike teams, they are what is killing spec force slot right now.

It bears repeating that (and I agree with both of you), IMO the issue is not the Snipers or their damage. It's the cheap activations and token predictability that Strike Teams give you.

This benefit will persist regardless of new factions or objectives and will continue to penalize high cost units or low activation armies.

Activation advantage beats even extreme unit performance, because even the weakest unit becomes super strong if it can't be shot at.

Strike Teams enable other units to take objectives by burning activations so those units can be safe.

If you try to buck the Strike Team meta what you have is two to four activation deficit, letting your opponent maneuver or attack with impunity.

There is an activation game that is happening on a layer above the wargame. It takes the typical considerations of focusing fire and refusing a flank in physical battle field space and makes them far less relevant than the maneuver you artificial game mechanic activation time.

As @lologrelolpoints out:

Quote

I think what we see in the higher levels of tournament play, is lots of cheap activations, and then 1 or 2 PUNCH units.

E.g. Bobba and Luke

Both wait till all of their cheaper units have acted, waiting to see where the enemy positions themselves, then they pounce.

It's a very effective and reliable tactic.

It is the ultimate OODA hack, except that it happens in reverse of what you should expect given unit qualities. Cheap units have the most positive impact on controlling the OODA loop. It should be the opposite.

High activation lists supporting one high impact unit, will beat low activation lists with many high impact units. I don't like it. I don't enjoy it. However when I play that way it works, and when I don't it's a struggle.

So long as Strike Teams are a cheap way to pad activations you will see them dominate lists, and crowd out the Support slot.

Because token diversity control also helps with exploiting the artificial OODA loop created by the activation rules, Strike Teams (and the required Special Forces slot) will also push out Support, Operative (unless an Operative is your one high impact unit) or Heavy as choices, multiplying the headwinds against picking more expensive units.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I’d doubt it. For reasons of real world CBA.

By the time I got thThrough my sixth unit of snow troopers I was going batty.

What does CBA stand for?

2 hours ago, syrath said:

I'm not talking 6 fleet troopers we are talking at most 1 spec ops unit that wasn't a strike team from all 8 finalists that wasn't brought in using Entourage, even then I'm not sure that player brought 3 spec ops. Which means that out of all of the possible options

Wookie warriors

Commando full team

Scout trooper full team

Death troopers

Pathfinders

Imperial royal guard

Commando strike team

Scout trooper strike team

Only the strike teams were chosen for those 23 of 24 spec ops slots. That is quite telling. Not only that but the fact that those spec ops units were chosen also over support and heavies as well. The 8 top players chose to limit themselves to 25% of the spec ops options and also ignored the two support and the heavy options. You can't say that this was down to players playing with what they are comfortable with on the rebel side , they have had more than enough time with the majority of those units to formulate strategies for them.

So given there has been no innovation (at this level)on the rebel side since strike teams were released. Ie we are still stuck at Luke Leia z6 troopers and 3 strike teams for competitive play it's hard to see the rebel game has progressed in the last year.

From an outsider looking in the pov that could be taken is that the game is stale that the majority of units used were from early release and none of the newer units outside the imperial commanders/operatives are worth having in a competitive environment. I know that is not exactly true, especially with Sabine and Bossh incoming. How long, though, till they end up ignored in favour of the old guard units, is my concern. Rebel Veterans already look to pricey to replace Z6's however I can only hope

Just to confirm I'm not doom and gloom about the state of the game, in fact for one year old I'm impressed with it, I just wish that the first World Championship had more variety on the choice of rebel side, which really came down to what flavor of strike team do you want to bring along, with most opting for snipers and the lone Daniel with his sabateur list, with the upcoming local championships coming up just how many games are we going to play against wonder twins, z6s and snipers.

This is not meant as a detriment against the game nor the players. As I said I'm confident that FFG will look and adjust and also not knee jerk react to the fact that snipers were chosen pretty much above all, after all the other units may just be under represented in this 8 man group., If that's the perfect army for rebels so be it, I just hope I'm not saying the same thing about Rebels next year or it's going to be a boring year and I'll maybe switch to clones.

Again, all the composition tells us is that the participants practiced with those lists.

Given that those are the oldest units, which are also the ones most frequently owned and run at lower levels, there’s no surprise they are the most common choices.

1 hour ago, CaptainRocket said:

It bears repeating that (and I agree with both of you), IMO the issue is not the Snipers or their damage. It's the cheap activations and token predictability that Strike Teams give you.

This benefit will persist regardless of new factions or objectives and will continue to penalize high cost units or low activation armies.

Activation advantage beats even extreme unit performance, because even the weakest unit becomes super strong if it can't be shot at.

Strike Teams enable other units to take objectives by burning activations so those units can be safe.

If you try to buck the Strike Team meta what you have is two to four activation deficit, letting your opponent maneuver or attack with impunity.

There is an activation game that is happening on a layer above the wargame. It takes the typical considerations of focusing fire and refusing a flank in physical battle field space and makes them far less relevant than the maneuver you artificial game mechanic activation time.

As @lologrelolpoints out:

It is the ultimate OODA hack, except that it happens in reverse of what you should expect given unit qualities. Cheap units have the most positive impact on controlling the OODA loop. It should be the opposite.

High activation lists supporting one high impact unit, will beat low activation lists with many high impact units. I don't like it. I don't enjoy it. However when I play that way it works, and when I don't it's a struggle.

So long as Strike Teams are a cheap way to pad activations you will see them dominate lists, and crowd out the Support slot.

Because token diversity control also helps with exploiting the artificial OODA loop created by the activation rules, Strike Teams (and the required Special Forces slot) will also push out Support, Operative (unless an Operative is your one high impact unit) or Heavy as choices, multiplying the headwinds against picking more expensive units.

You realize that’s not what an OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop is right?

Force composition in this game stops interacting with that process literally as soon as you reveal them. Because that is the point at which a player can immediately adjust to any known information.

13 minutes ago, Derrault said:

You realize that’s not what an OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop is right?

Force composition in this game stops interacting with that process literally as soon as you reveal them. Because that is the point at which a player can immediately adjust to any known information.

The activation system in Legion encodes a particular model of IGOUGO OODA loop in which players take equivalent actions and get equivalent intel with a small amount of 'friction' caused by random token type draws.

This loop is broken as soon as the one player runs out of activations. That player cannot react. Their opponent is operating at infinite speed with perfect information. In the same way that a small OODA loop advantage in a realtime simultaneous model is more important than even significant capability advantages (because you can't kill what you can't see, what you don't know is there, or what you have not been ordered to look for), this advantage in Legion's model outweighs nearly all the other capability advantages and balances.

In Legion however you can acquire this advantage not by investing into more expensive awareness, more highly trained and independant units, or redundant systems, but rather by under-investing and maximizing the leanest swarmiest armies.

This is because this OODA exploit is not an intentional feature of how activations are supposed to time slice simultaneous action, but rather an unintended consequence of a system that generally plays pretty well so long as you are not trying to max out every competative advantage. One to two activation deficit, when players are not premeasuring every threat radius and planning around trying to eke max advantage and it would be easy to overlook. However combine this activation system bug with a highly competitive scene and net decking and it's value will be recognized and exploited.

9 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

The activation system in Legion encodes a particular model of IGOUGO OODA loop in which players take equivalent actions and get equivalent intel with a small amount of 'friction' caused by random token type draws.

This loop is broken as soon as the one player runs out of activations. That player cannot react. Their opponent is operating at infinite speed with perfect information. In the same way that a small OODA loop advantage in a realtime simultaneous model is more important than even significant capability advantages (because you can't kill what you can't see, what you don't know is there, or what you have not been ordered to look for), this advantage in Legion's model outweighs nearly all the other capability advantages and balances.

In Legion however you can acquire this advantage not by investing into more expensive awareness, more highly trained and independant units, or redundant systems, but rather by under-investing and maximizing the leanest swarmiest armies.

This is because this OODA exploit is not an intentional feature of how activations are supposed to time slice simultaneous action, but rather an unintended consequence of a system that generally plays pretty well so long as you are not trying to max out every competative advantage. One to two activation deficit, when players are not premeasuring every threat radius and planning around trying to eke max advantage and it would be easy to overlook. However combine this activation system bug with a highly competitive scene and net decking and it's value will be recognized and exploited.

Again, that’s not an OODA loop, because the strategem is itself something that gets accounted for. Remember, OODA loops are a meta-concept that incorporates everything.

If taking strike teams to try and sort activations for later is part of your decision process, seeing you take them is something I can incorporate into my decision process before our units even hit the table.

9 minutes ago, Derrault said:

If taking strike teams to try and sort activations for later is part of your decision process, seeing you take them is something I can incorporate into my decision process before our units even hit the table.

What would you use to counter sniper and troop spam, alongside 1/2 fast hitters like luke/bobba?

...

That's the process the top players choose.

Again I will point out that the evidence of these lists being top, is not only that they (the top players) have chosen to use those lists based on experience; but also because they know what works. They know a chain of cheap activations to support a highly moveable death dealer (e.g. luke/bobba) is the most effective and forgiving strategy.

You keep saying the best players only choose those lists because its what they're used to. But your bias stops you from admitting that they may have come to that conclusion, based upon their own experience with other lists. You don't know that they tried to play with other lists outside of tournaments, and realized they just weren't very effective.

Was it another thread where you/others said you didn't even play the **** game?

@Derrault CBA is cost to benefit analysis. Deeply involved players already own 3 copies of Legion so they have 6 corps. Get more corps for fun but around unit 3 or 4 it starts seeming like another one is money better put into something new and different.

Crazy as I am, even for me painting 6x snow troopers started getting old.

@CaptainRocket and @Derrault anyway you wanna mince acronyms, more people seem to be against what we’re seeing than for it. It’s an example of playing the rules instead of the game. Snipers had unintended consequences for order of operations. Though, command cards already made Legion too dependent on that for my tastes. This strike team and corps “spam” as the kids call it just exacerbated a trend I already find unfun.

1 minute ago, TauntaunScout said:

@Derrault CBA is cost to benefit analysis. Deeply involved players already own 3 copies of Legion so they have 6 corps. Get more corps for fun but around unit 3 or 4 it starts seeming like another one is money better put into something new and different.

Crazy as I am, even for me painting 6x snow troopers started getting old.

Ah, I admit, I frequently begin feeling fatigue on the 6th iteration. Although repetition does mean the later models typically come out better done than the first 6.

@lologrelol

I’d use anti-infantry units, and something able to intercept and kill the snipers (removing the activations that are the flat out easiest to kill) first.

The counterpoint is that there are many more players who are NOT the ultimate winners using those same lists.

What bias do you think I have?

Maybe a time limit would help solve multiple issues in tournaments. You will play to turn six (if anything is left alive) and each player gets X minutes per round.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

@lologrelol

I’d use anti-infantry units, and something able to intercept and kill the snipers (removing the activations that are the flat out easiest to kill) first.

The counterpoint is that there are many more players who are NOT the ultimate winners using those same lists.

What bias do you think I have?

Anti-infantry units? Like flamethrowers? Because its pretty easy to focus those down. How are you going to get to the snipers? Because the 6 troops are there to block you. If you roll up a tonne of flamers, luke/bobba will just jump in to help block you.

I don't care about the many other players. I care about where the meta is leading the top tier lists. Luke/bobba and max activations are more effective than support/heavy based lists.

I think you are willfully ignoring the value of activation spam in an alternate activation based game.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Again, that’s not an OODA loop, because the strategem is itself something that gets accounted for. Remember, OODA loops are a meta-concept that incorporates everything.

If taking strike teams to try and sort activations for later is part of your decision process, seeing you take them is something I can incorporate into my decision process before our units even hit the table.

This is completely incorrect. OODA loop analysis is a form of deconstructing adversarial systems with an eye towards understanding the decision making cycle and crafting a competitive strategy which does not focus on material or positional advantages, but rather an advantage in information flow which can render both material and positional superiority moot. The point is not the decisions themselves, it's the speed of the cycle and how it operates, it's weaknesses, etc. that are of interest.

Your misconstrued description of it sounds a bit like a certain cunning Italian's duel of wits with a certain dread pirate.

Understanding the OODA loop and exploit it means looking at the smallest most frequent information decision cycles - e.g. radio updates to a Captain at command center and the synthesis and issuing of new orders, shouted updates from a Sargent to a Lieutenant in a fox hole, and the subsequent command. The entire battle, or the entire war, or in this case the entirety of one game of Legion as a loop, is only a useful perspective if we are comparing performance from game to game.

However, in this case, the point is understanding the bug in the OODA loop imposed by the activation system within an individual game.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

It’s an example of playing the rules instead of the game. Snipers had unintended consequences for order of operations. Though, command cards already made Legion too dependent on that for my tastes. This strike team and corps “spam” as the kids call it just exacerbated a trend I already find unfun.

I completely agree. But competitive play will play the rules not the subject matter, it is in the nature of the scorpion.

I actually think the current meta is a perfect storm of IGOUGO activation, token diversity for Clausewitzean friction, and Heroes with disproportionate impact through command cards.

I think it can be alliviated by removing the cheapness of Strike Teams, by relaxing the penalty of token diversity, or by removing Heroes. However since some formats of play require heroes, that's not viable as a general solution.

Don't get me wrong, I *love* the heroes. I will want to play lots with them. I also want some formats without any heroes!

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

What would you use to counter sniper and troop spam, alongside 1/2 fast hitters like luke/bobba?

...

Was it another thread where you/others said you didn't even play the **** game?

I have really enjoyed this debate much more when I stopped worrying about trying to be understood by any one specific individual, and just decided to reply to everything in a way that's clear even if the poster will never agree or understand me.

I think you and I both understand the way the game is played when competitive, and why that dynamic naturally leads to looking for cheap ways to max activation and min token diversity, while keeping one big hitter in the pocket.

51 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

Anti-infantry units? Like flamethrowers? Because its pretty easy to focus those down. How are you going to get to the snipers? Because the 6 troops are there to block you. If you roll up a tonne of flamers, luke/bobba will just jump in to help block you.

I don't care about the many other players. I care about where the meta is leading the top tier lists. Luke/bobba and max activations are more effective than support/heavy based lists.

I think you are willfully ignoring the value of activation spam in an alternate activation based game.

Focus fire with...what exactly? The army that’s supposedly lurking just out of range? 🙄

I agree that proper force application is frequently a game of rocks-paper-scissors; that being said, Luke can’t actually pin the flamer in place, nor can Boba.

I’m not ignoring the use of extra activations, any more than I’m ignoring their weaknesses. Refusing to exploit them would be pretty shortsighted.

42 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

This is completely incorrect. OODA loop analysis is a form of deconstructing adversarial systems with an eye towards understanding the decision making cycle and crafting a competitive strategy which does not focus on material or positional advantages, but rather an advantage in information flow which can render both material and positional superiority moot. The point is not the decisions themselves, it's the speed of the cycle and how it operates, it's weaknesses, etc. that are of interest.

Your misconstrued description of it sounds a bit like a certain cunning Italian's duel of wits with a certain dread pirate.

Understanding the OODA loop and exploit it means looking at the smallest most frequent information decision cycles - e.g. radio updates to a Captain at command center and the synthesis and issuing of new orders, shouted updates from a Sargent to a Lieutenant in a fox hole, and the subsequent command. The entire battle, or the entire war, or in this case the entirety of one game of Legion as a loop, is only a useful perspective if we are comparing performance from game to game.

However, in this case, the point is understanding the bug in the OODA loop imposed by the activation system within an individual game.

And how is it you think that giving someone foreknowledge or your capabilities doesn’t get subjected to the speed of information processing?

It isn’t the game that stands in for decision processing, that’s where you’re making an error. It’s the players. There are always going to be a limited number of actions over the course of the game, that’s built in, what changes is how we as players absorb given information and react to that, more like chess than an RTS or any other form of modern warfare where pure reaction timing matters (although instituting a chess clock would help place some pressure on players to act quickly).

35 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I’m not ignoring the use of extra activations, any more than I’m ignoring their weaknesses. Refusing to exploit them would be pretty shortsighted.

And how is it you think that giving someone foreknowledge or your capabilities doesn’t get subjected to the speed of information processing?

It isn’t the game that stands in for decision processing, that’s where you’re making an error. It’s the players. There are always going to be a limited number of actions over the course of the game, that’s built in, what changes is how we as players absorb given information and react to that, more like chess than an RTS or any other form of modern warfare where pure reaction timing matters (although instituting a chess clock would help place some pressure on players to act quickly).

Except unlike Chess, you can come to the table and after a few turns of IGOUGO, you can then take multiple turns in a row. That is the definition of operating inside the opponents OODA loop, and consequently is more powerful than any unit power or defense, and consequently will be the impetus towards Strike Teams above all else.

Foreknowledge is irrelevant. I can know you will out activate me just as surely as I can know that that my centralized air defense network is a liability. I can formulate a strategy hoping to mitigate it, and yet I will be incapable of it because units move too far, the game is objective based and I do not start on them, but have to close simultaneously with the enemy, and I have no overwatch.

The activation system creates an opportunity for an OODA exploit that is unnatural and unintuative, but is absolutely there. You can deny it, or ignore it, but the top table players will consistently prove to you the error of your ways.

It can be mitigated a number of ways while the available units is small (increase Strike Team costs, make them Detachments, change force composition limits, etc.), but I suspect after a year of Clone Wars adding to the gradient of point values, it will be hard to avoid looking at either the token rank system or activation system.

It is possible that by adding cheap activation padding units into other ranks (like Detachment do to Corps) you could increase list diversity, while still keeping higher cost units undesirable. That would be sad.

5 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

Except unlike Chess, you can come to the table and after a few turns of IGOUGO, you can then take multiple turns in a row. That is the definition of operating inside the opponents OODA loop, and consequently is more powerful than any unit power or defense, and consequently will be the impetus towards Strike Teams above all else.

Foreknowledge is irrelevant. I can know you will out activate me just as surely as I can know that that my centralized air defense network is a liability. I can formulate a strategy hoping to mitigate it, and yet I will be incapable of it because units move too far, the game is objective based and I do not start on them, but have to close simultaneously with the enemy, and I have no overwatch.

The activation system creates an opportunity for an OODA exploit that is unnatural and unintuative, but is absolutely there. You can deny it, or ignore it, but the top table players will consistently prove to you the error of your ways.

It can be mitigated a number of ways while the available units is small (increase Strike Team costs, make them Detachments, change force composition limits, etc.), but I suspect after a year of Clone Wars adding to the gradient of point values, it will be hard to avoid looking at either the token rank system or activation system.

It is possible that by adding cheap activation padding units into other ranks (like Detachment do to Corps) you could increase list diversity, while still keeping higher cost units undesirable. That would be sad.

The only point at which delaying an activation might plausibly create a benefit is in the round just prior to engagement, in the hopes of luring an enemy into stepping forward without attacking, ceding the first strike.

That’s foreseeable, and is therefore avoidable. The player with fewer forces should only seek to engage where risk of counterattack is mild (flanks/within range of activated units) and attack that which has not yet activated (blunting its eventual efficacy). If the opposing player is obviously delaying some unit(s) in the hope of using them at the end of the round, it is a simple matter to note and avoid those units.

Luke, for example, is limited to two 6 inch moves, a 1 foot threat range.

Boba Fett is more limited to one 8 inch move (since he lacks charge) plus a range 2 attack (12 inches) for a 20 inch threat range, or a more feeble range 3 attack that loses out on half the dice (26 inches).

Meaning any unit can plant itself at just outside range 2 and threaten Luke with total impunity, or at range 4 and pretty much do the same to Fett (if 2 dice is threatening, that’s a bigger problem).

14 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I don't see why you would expect the meta to swing violently the other way?

Hey Cap,

I could, of course, be wrong - but it's with an experiment. I'm going to propose here what I *think* your idea is, mechanically, then why don't we both give it a try?

Have a supply of tokens that are "pass" (in my case, I use cheap coin holders on my cardboard tokens, so easy enough to slip in a scrap of paper without them being "marked" for randomisation purposes). At the start of each turn, give enough "pass" tokens to whichever player is lower on activations to equal the number.

We should try an setup test games against high activation lists (like Boba/Veers/DLTs/snipers) using elite lists (like double tank, or quad Death Troopers).

My suspicion is that ability to both wipe enemy units with early activations *and* stall out till last activation with passes will seem unfair quite fast. Since a "pass" cannot be killed before it's turn you are almost guaranteed last activation as the smaller army.

Another alternative is what Battletech does. You track remaining activations and if you have double the number remaining you activate twice in a row (triple -> 3 times, etc).

Sorry, long post of boring details but actually I think your idea has merit, but want to be mindful of unintended side effects - a significant risk when you start making house rules. As I'm sure Taun-Taun Scout will attest, this isn't an issue in a tightly knit group of friends obeying a social contract to keep the game "realistic" or "cinematic" - but then you wouldn't need to change the rule anyway.

For me it all boils down to some of the bigger more awesome units just costing a little too much points wise.

I for one am looking forward to seeing what the two new factions bring to the table.

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

For me it all boils down to some of the bigger more awesome units just costing a little too much points wise.

I for one am looking forward to seeing what the two new factions bring to the table.

I'd disagree having control of the activations and acting last /first has a major effect on the game . cost of units has the side effect of lowering your activations causing the same effect. That and armor being no use on many objectives. Like and Boba aren't exactly cheap.