On 1/3/2020 at 2:32 PM, R3dReVenge said:

You could argue that lists aren't diverse since they are all trying to maximize the # of activations --> Tauntaun + sniper spam for Rebel lists and Shoretrooper/Mortar/Sniper spam for empire lists.

The reason why I brought this topic up was because I viewed the recent lists at the invader tournament and they featured 10-12 activation per list. Sniper abuse is just as prevalent as it used to be.

I think Strike Teams should have some rule (named unit, Unique, etc.) to allow only 1 per army. The sniper spam is not good for the game.

I don't like a hard cap rule. I would favor a "no more than 2 of any unit" rule for a tournament but other tham that I'm fine.

I like bonuses for vehicles because i feel they are not as stong as they should be yet, but adding sharpshooter 1 to any vehicle's main or big gun would probably fix them

As a general rule I prefer changes that nudge, as oppose to ban. I would rather a rule that fixes the underlying problem, activation being more valuable than a lot of other options. Not sure how you would do that, but it seems like if you cap at 10, we will just see a new static meta.

Making activation count determine blue player seems like the best suggestion as a first step.

At the very least, I think when a unit is destroyed its order token should become a pass token as well.

Coming from a Bolt Action, I don't think that this game needs hard caps on activations. In Bolt Action, there is a lot more flexibility in squad size (base squad is frequently 5 models, depending on unit they can cap out at 10-20), and you can take multiple platoons (basically duplicate the force org chart), so you can build spam lists with about 40 activations in 1000 points. For reference, elite lists tend to have 8-10 activations, and "normal" lists have 10-12. So in that case, a hard cap for tournaments is a very good idea to ensure quick play and prevent certain obscene lists.

Here I have to agree that putting a hard cap on activations will hurt the droids the most, and the Rebel lists a bit. Right now with droids they max out at 10, but they don't yet have any strike teams or even enough units in other force org slots to TRY to go over 10 activations. They only have enough units for 11 activations, and two of those are high cost commanders preventing them from fielding that many activations at 800 points. I am more inclined towards a cap on the "problem" units of the strike teams, similar to how the Detachment keyword prevents spamming of the Emplacement Trooper Corps units.

IMO activations is an issue for 2 reasons. Initial setup and in game play. If one army has more activations than the other, the setup advantage goes towards the army with more activations, simply because they can wait to setup key units last.
A way to get around this would be to have a blind setup with unit tokens first. The army that has less units could be given blank tokens to make up the difference. Once all the tokens are exhausted, the tokens would be replaced with unit miniatures.

2nd having more activations is also an advantage near the end of each round allowing the player with more activations to activate units without any consequence other than dealing with the occasional standby orders of the enemy.
To eliminate this issue the player with less activations would be given pass options equal to the difference in activations.

18 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Coming from a Bolt Action, I don't think that this game needs hard caps on activations. In Bolt Action, there is a lot more flexibility in squad size (base squad is frequently 5 models, depending on unit they can cap out at 10-20), and you can take multiple platoons (basically duplicate the force org chart), so you can build spam lists with about 40 activations in 1000 points. For reference, elite lists tend to have 8-10 activations, and "normal" lists have 10-12. So in that case, a hard cap for tournaments is a very good idea to ensure quick play and prevent certain obscene lists.

Here I have to agree that putting a hard cap on activations will hurt the droids the most, and the Rebel lists a bit. Right now with droids they max out at 10, but they don't yet have any strike teams or even enough units in other force org slots to TRY to go over 10 activations. They only have enough units for 11 activations, and two of those are high cost commanders preventing them from fielding that many activations at 800 points. I am more inclined towards a cap on the "problem" units of the strike teams, similar to how the Detachment keyword prevents spamming of the Emplacement Trooper Corps units.

I remember Japanese Army players would take 5-man bamboo units and cheap artillery and jam in like 40 activations, and Warlord had to implement a cap of 12 units per 1000pt army for tournaments. Having a max of like 10 or 11 activations wouldnt be terrible for Legion

1 hour ago, Tri3 said:

IMO activations is an issue for 2 reasons. Initial setup and in game play. If one army has more activations than the other, the setup advantage goes towards the army with more activations, simply because they can wait to setup key units last.
A way to get around this would be to have a blind setup with unit tokens first. The army that has less units could be given blank tokens to make up the difference. Once all the tokens are exhausted, the tokens would be replaced with unit miniatures.

2nd having more activations is also an advantage near the end of each round allowing the player with more activations to activate units without any consequence other than dealing with the occasional standby orders of the enemy.
To eliminate this issue the player with less activations would be given pass options equal to the difference in activations.

Another Bolt Action rule Legion could use: all order tokens are put into bag and drawn at random, and whatever you drew, you must put down that unit corresponding to that rank.

2 hours ago, Tri3 said:

IMO activations is an issue for 2 reasons. Initial setup and in game play. If one army has more activations than the other, the setup advantage goes towards the army with more activations, simply because they can wait to setup key units last.
A way to get around this would be to have a blind setup with unit tokens first. The army that has less units could be given blank tokens to make up the difference. Once all the tokens are exhausted, the tokens would be replaced with unit miniatures.

2nd having more activations is also an advantage near the end of each round allowing the player with more activations to activate units without any consequence other than dealing with the occasional standby orders of the enemy.
To eliminate this issue the player with less activations would be given pass options equal to the difference in activations.

The first suggestion is interesting to me for lots of different wargames, but generally can slow the game down. Chain of Command has an interesting variant on this idea, with "jump off points" that are moved during "deployment" and units are later deployed from those points during the course of the game. Additionally, the placement of individual models within the unit can have differing effects on the game state. Overall, interesting, but it also removes much of the benefit of deploying second, and arguably still heavily favours the army with more activations. They still have plenty of chaff units to deploy first, since you still want to hold key units until last to give you the greatest amount of information. Even if you don't know exactly which unit is which, you still know where all of your opponent's units are.

Second: I don't really view this as the main issue. The main problem with having fewer activations than your opponent is that more activations also means more unit leaders and more sources of suppression, regardless of activation order. All objective scoring is done by unit leaders, so the more of those you have on the board, the better equipped you are to take objectives. In general, each unit is only able to place two suppression (IF you choose to split fire with the heavy weapon), but in practice each unit is typically only used for a single suppression. None of these challenges are "fixed" by a pass mechanic.

46 minutes ago, PalpShuttle said:

I remember Japanese Army players would take 5-man bamboo units and cheap artillery and jam in like 40 activations, and Warlord had to implement a cap of 12 units per 1000pt army for tournaments. Having a max of like 10 or 11 activations wouldnt be terrible for Legion

I wasn't saying it would be "terrible" just that I don't really view it as necessary since it isn't as prone to abuse as Bolt Action's multiple platoon army construction. Some of the reason behind the limitation to 12 Order Dice is also for playtime, since beyond that the game can tend to drag... especially since units aren't typically as fragile as in Legion.

9 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Second: I don't really view this as the main issue. The main problem with having fewer activations than your opponent is that more activations also means more unit leaders and more sources of suppression, regardless of activation order. All objective scoring is done by unit leaders, so the more of those you have on the board, the better equipped you are to take objectives. In general, each unit is only able to place two suppression (IF you choose to split fire with the heavy weapon), but in practice each unit is typically only used for a single suppression. None of these challenges are "fixed" by a pass mechanic.

I wasn't saying it would be "terrible" just that I don't really view it as necessary since it isn't as prone to abuse as Bolt Action's multiple platoon army construction. Some of the reason behind the limitation to 12 is also for playtime, since beyond that the game can tend to drag... especially since units aren't typically as fragile as in Legion.

But are people bringing lists over 12 activations? Most activations are around ~10 with a few outliers at 11 or 12.

An option could be to limit acitvations based on the # of commanders:

1 Commander = 9 activations.

1 Commander + 1 Operative = 10 activations

2 Commanders OR 1 commander + 2 Operatives = 11 activations

You bring up several advantages to having more activations, but I think the biggest advantage is the choice to activate key units. A pass mechanic allows the disadvantaged player to make better decisions with their key units.

How I would implement the pass mechanic:

#1 At the start of the game, the player with fewer activations gets that many passes. GAR has 9 units. Rebels have 12 units. Gar gets 3 passes.

#2 GAR will have 3 passes every round. This number cannot increase or decrease (even if GAR loses units and have fewer than 9 available units). By doing this, we give players an incentive to fully eliminate units because then they would gain a true activation advantages.

50 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

But are people bringing lists over 12 activations? Most activations are around ~10 with a few outliers at 11 or 12.

Sorry for not being clear, the part you are responding to is purely pertaining to Bolt Action, which does have tournament "activation" limitations, not Legion. The reasons for that limitation are different than what some people are arguing for owing to the different way the turns are handled than in Legion.

Quote

You bring up several advantages to having more activations, but I think the biggest advantage is the choice to activate key units. A pass mechanic allows the disadvantaged player to make better decisions with their key units.

How I would implement the pass mechanic:

#1 At the start of the game, the player with fewer activations gets that many passes. GAR has 9 units. Rebels have 12 units. Gar gets 3 passes.

#2 GAR will have 3 passes every round. This number cannot increase or decrease (even if GAR loses units and have fewer than 9 available units). By doing this, we give players an incentive to fully eliminate units because then they would gain a true activation advantages.

I don't view that as the biggest advantage. Especially since having fewer activations also means you have an easier time getting better control over when certain units activate, by making it easier to thin your blind draw pile/bag. I can also dictate when it is best for an opponent to activate a particular unit through use of Standby or Suppression. Focussing fire on a particular unit forces your opponent to activate it or risk being suppressed/panicking/destroyed. The so called "disadvantaged" player still has the same number of points on the board (roughly). If the units are as effective as the points indicate they should be, then any "disadvantage" from having less activations should be offset by having more effective units, either as they are more resilient, better offensively, or both.

If you don't dynamically change the number of passes, then it becomes a huge advantage later on. The GAR units are more resilient than the Rebel units, so it is more likely that the Rebel player will lose units, reducing their activation count. If having fewer activations is such a great advantage, then the Rebel player now is at a big disadvantage, and will have a much harder time reducing the number of activations than the GAR player, especially since the GAR player has three "activations" the Rebel player can't interact with in any way.

Quote

An option could be to limit acitvations based on the # of commanders:

1 Commander = 9 activations.

1 Commander + 1 Operative = 10 activations

2 Commanders OR 1 commander + 2 Operatives = 11 activations

This just looks like a cap of 8 activations on non-Commander/Operative units, not actually based on the number of commanders.

6 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

But are people bringing lists over 12 activations? Most activations are around ~10 with a few outliers at 11 or 12.

An option could be to limit acitvations based on the # of commanders:

1 Commander = 9 activations.

1 Commander + 1 Operative = 10 activations

2 Commanders OR 1 commander + 2 Operatives = 11 activations

You bring up several advantages to having more activations, but I think the biggest advantage is the choice to activate key units. A pass mechanic allows the disadvantaged player to make better decisions with their key units.

How I would implement the pass mechanic:

#1 At the start of the game, the player with fewer activations gets that many passes. GAR has 9 units. Rebels have 12 units. Gar gets 3 passes.

#2 GAR will have 3 passes every round. This number cannot increase or decrease (even if GAR loses units and have fewer than 9 available units). By doing this, we give players an incentive to fully eliminate units because then they would gain a true activation advantages.

I would be worried that this would create a negative effect on the game. Activation padding may be an issue, but having a pass system as described could create power creep for more expensive units. I believe the costs for a lot of the more expensive units are calculated with the notion that the lists they're in would have fewer activations. With a pass mechanic someone could take 800 points in powerful units and use they low activation count to get a free delay mechanic.

I shudder to think what a list like

39 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

An option could be to limit acitvations based on the # of commanders:

1 Commander = 9 activations.

1 Commander + 1 Operative = 10 activations

2 Commanders OR 1 commander + 2 Operatives = 11 activations

I don't hate this.

1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I would be worried that this would create a negative effect on the game. Activation padding may be an issue, but having a pass system as described could create power creep for more expensive units. I believe the costs for a lot of the more expensive units are calculated with the notion that the lists they're in would have fewer activations. With a pass mechanic someone could take 800 points in powerful units and use they low activation count to get a free delay mechanic.

We have no reason to think it would cause power creep (no data or testing with a pass rule).

What we do know is that higher activation lists are winning tournaments and are forcing the meta into an unhealthily place by making factions unviable (GAR).

My goal by adding a pass mechanic is to allow an increase in list diversity (which could disrupt the meta) by removing the "forced" activation spam.

On another note:

It's alarming that both finals lists in season 4 Invader League looked almost identical. Both 11+ activation rebel lists.

3 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

We have no reason to think it would cause power creep (no data or testing with a pass rule).

What we do know is that higher activation lists are winning tournaments and are forcing the meta into an unhealthily place by making factions unviable (GAR).

My goal by adding a pass mechanic is to allow an increase in list diversity (which could disrupt the meta) by removing the "forced" activation spam.

On another note:

It's alarming that both finals lists in season 4 Invader League looked almost identical. Both 11+ activation rebel lists.

Personally I think the main reason the GAR is unviable is the utter lack of unit options. The lists for Droids and GAR all look similar to the same by virtue of having next to no options, so it is a bit easier to "counter" those armies.

I don't think the pass mechanic actually removes anything. The main advantages of multiple activations are having more unit leaders for claiming objectives, more sources of suppression, and more chaff units for deployment. A pass mechanic does nothing for the other advantages. Point adjustments or limitations placed on specifically "abused" units would be more effective.

anyone saying GAR isnt viable hasnt played a competent player then. ive seen someone play obi, rex, 6 clones and destroy a 13 activation rebel list, you just have to play smart and know when to strike. activation cap is such a dumb concept. if someone wants to max out at 15 activations but be useless in a fight when someone wants to take 8 hard hitting power houses its part of the choice you need to make. I personally love going against a high activation count army when i play droids it makes me think more tactically than i would if it was completely even.

22 minutes ago, shuntley said:

anyone saying GAR isnt viable hasnt played a competent player then. ive seen someone play obi, rex, 6 clones and destroy a 13 activation rebel list, you just have to play smart and know when to strike. activation cap is such a dumb concept. if someone wants to max out at 15 activations but be useless in a fight when someone wants to take 8 hard hitting power houses its part of the choice you need to make. I personally love going against a high activation count army when i play droids it makes me think more tactically than i would if it was completely even.

In Skirmish, I found that throwing around 20 dice at just about any unit using Fire Support, targeting scopes, and an aim token can just about delete any unit. The first step to eating an elephant is taking a bite.

This seems like more of an issue with the missions to me. I'd really like to see more missions where any unit, especially vehicles, can score.

That being said I like the concept of a pass mechanic, but I'd do it as a command upgrade. Something like:

Tatical Brilliance

This upgrade my only be selected by an army with less than 10 activations.

Exhaust

At any point during the controlling players activation, when it is their turn to activate a unit, they may activate this card instead.

At the end of the activation phase, ready this card.

5 points.

This game would die extremely quickly if there was an activation cap. It would entirely remove so much of the distinction between factions such as droids strength in numbers and the fact that clones only disadvantage is low activation. An activation cap would not only make the game even more complex deterring many new players but it would also remove droids from the meta and clones would rule. A pass mechanic would also be extremely imbalanced and if there was a way to balance it, it would definitely be extremely complicated. If some rule like this had been incorporated from the start of the game then yeah sure it could maybe work. But the game and the factions have already evolved and progressed so far that it would be devastating to add a rule with this amount of change to the game this point. Leave the game how it is. Legion is one of FFG's handful of games that they have been able to keep very well balanced and I see no need to change that in any way

2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

We have no reason to think it would cause power creep (no data or testing with a pass rule).

I mean, yes and no.

You are correct that there is no data with the pass ruling, specifically because it doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have no reason to think it may cause power creep.

Activation mechanics are almost always tricky and from my limited experience often become abused in competitive metas to compound with powerful units. From my experience with Star Wars Armada, which eventually implemented pass rulings, I can say there was an effect to larger more powerful ships after the pass mechanics were added. Considering the similarities between systems using activation padding, I think there's at least some reason to think that power creep could become an issue.

In Armada, an army would bid for first player, have one (rarely two) powerful ship(s) and pad activations to out-deploy and out-activate the enemy army (usually with a cheap 18 point "floatilla" and squadrons). Then, over the course of a round, they'd use their activation padding until the enemy ships had all activated and activate the power unit getting it in the perfect position. Finally they'd activate the power unit first at the beginning of the next round to deliver a powerful hit and escape threat range. It seems to me Legion's issue with activation padding (specifically around rebels at them moment?) centers around 3-6 bare troopers, 2-3 snipers as padding for 3x tuan tuans to move in late and hit hard. Very similar in most regards. While it may not be the solution for Legion, Armada did put a hard cap on the units being abused, and they also implemented unique pass mechanic upgrades to avoid copious pass spam in the place of copious floatilla spam while still allowing larger more powerful units to gain some benefit of a pass mechanic.

All of that to say, I have seen what adding even a limited amount of pass mechanics can do to a game under similar circumstances, and it did empower larger more expensive units quite a bit. Not to say it makes me certain it'll cause creep here by any means, but it does make me wary of simply adding passes en masse.

I will agree that it appears there's an issue with list building. I'm not sure if it's because of the inherent power of high activation lists or the effectiveness of the power units they seem to be padding for.

On a side note, rumor around the block is that Tuans and Mortars are getting a nerf.

10 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

On a side note, rumor around the block is that Tuans and Mortars are getting a nerf.

I can't say I'm surprised if true. Did rumour say if this is supposed to be part of the "annual points adjustment" or something "out of cycle?"

Just now, Caimheul1313 said:

I can't say I'm surprised if true. Did rumour say if this is supposed to be part of the "annual points adjustment" or something "out of cycle?"

Just that some folks had heard that something was coming. No clear info on timing.

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Just that some folks had heard that something was coming. No clear info on timing.

Figured that might be the case, but figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thanks!

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Just that some folks had heard that something was coming. No clear info on timing.

Whatever it is it'd better happen sooner rather than later...tauns are just too crazy annoying

1 hour ago, bllaw said:

This game would die extremely quickly if there was an activation cap. It would entirely remove so much of the distinction between factions such as droids strength in numbers and the fact that clones only disadvantage is low activation. An activation cap would not only make the game even more complex deterring many new players but it would also remove droids from the meta and clones would rule. A pass mechanic would also be extremely imbalanced and if there was a way to balance it, it would definitely be extremely complicated. If some rule like this had been incorporated from the start of the game then yeah sure it could maybe work. But the game and the factions have already evolved and progressed so far that it would be devastating to add a rule with this amount of change to the game this point. Leave the game how it is. Legion is one of FFG's handful of games that they have been able to keep very well balanced and I see no need to change that in any way

Droids strength in numbers comes from unit size, not activations. There seems to be an assumption that more cheap options are coming, but there's no proof of that. Droids cannot win the activation war at the moment, nor in the foreseeable future. Let's deal with the now, not the potential what-ifs/could be's of the future.

10 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

Droids strength in numbers comes from unit size, not activations. There seems to be an assumption that more cheap options are coming, but there's no proof of that. Droids cannot win the activation war at the moment, nor in the foreseeable future. Let's deal with the now, not the potential what-ifs/could be's of the future.

It's not solely unit sizes though, the price of activations is also a part of it. The 36 points for a Corps option is (currently) the cheapest in the game, tying with the Mortar.

The main reason the droids can't win the "activation war" as you put it is solely due to a lack of units, particularly in the special forces force org slot, little else. Should they get a strike team and a 50 point generic commander, that will start to change.

27 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

It's not solely unit sizes though, the price of activations is also a part of it. The 36 points for a Corps option is (currently) the cheapest in the game, tying with the Mortar.

The main reason the droids can't win the "activation war" as you put it is solely due to a lack of units, particularly in the special forces force org slot, little else. Should they get a strike team and a 50 point generic commander, that will start to change.

Yes, but several people have flat-out stated that large numbers of activations is a strength of CIS, which is currently completely false.