6 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

since he just moves the goalposts or states his unique opinions as facts. If you disagree with him, just don't engage.

Isn't that what second edition is for? Standardized Goalposts? 😋

20 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

Please don't. Plenty of threads have been ruined by people getting into pages-long arguments with Derrault. He simply will not even let the argument end, and you can't "win" or convince him since he just moves the goalposts or states his unique opinions as facts. If you disagree with him, just don't engage.

Don’t project yourself onto me, thanks.

On 5/19/2020 at 12:33 AM, lologrelol said:

Limiting tournament games to 10 activations max would make the meta change for the better.

Fake worlds was won by activation spam.

Activation spam actually lets you get more health points on the board.

The main metric for winning the game is getting the most unit leaders on an objective.

There's no guarantee less units gives more durability.

The only thing bigger/more powerful units get, is being able to get past cover effects more easily.

Activation count should never be limited- that is something that would ruin the game really quickly IMO. With the new Vital Assets cards, low activation armies have a good shot now. Cards like bombing run, hostage exchange, and recover the supplies actually SUPPORT low activation counts. Low activation armies just have to have a big enough bid for blue player that they can use these cards and get a good setup. Activation spam will always be powerful, but does there have to be a rule to stop it? No. It's not overpowered its just another part of the game. If activation count is limited to 10 then armies will all start looking similar. If there's one thing I hate about the meta its when armies all look the same such as when all the imperial armies had tons of shoretroopers and mortars until the errata. Having high activation counts and low activation counts mix up the meta and keep the game interesting. But that's just my two cents

46 minutes ago, bllaw said:

Activation count should never be limited- that is something that would ruin the game really quickly IMO. With the new Vital Assets cards, low activation armies have a good shot now. Cards like bombing run, hostage exchange, and recover the supplies actually SUPPORT low activation counts. Low activation armies just have to have a big enough bid for blue player that they can use these cards and get a good setup.

Recover the supplies supports low activation armies? Please explain how you believe this is the case.

At the end of the day high activations can put out more suppression on average than low activation armies. Some will counter that units like snipers/sabs are easy targets to take down, but the way LOS and wounds happen in this game, it is incredibly easy to keep one of two models out of LOS early on. This means that unit gets heavy cover (assuming no sharpshooter) and the unit is protected from being killed by the model out of LOS. So those units likely cannot be taken out until round 3, which means two full rounds of activation imbalance. This isn't so bad when it is one or two, but when the opponent has four or five more activations, it is incredibly hard to overcome.

6 hours ago, bllaw said:

Activation count should never be limited- that is something that would ruin the game really quickly IMO. With the new Vital Assets cards, low activation armies have a good shot now. Cards like bombing run, hostage exchange, and recover the supplies actually SUPPORT low activation counts. Low activation armies just have to have a big enough bid for blue player that they can use these cards and get a good setup. Activation spam will always be powerful, but does there have to be a rule to stop it? No. It's not overpowered its just another part of the game. If activation count is limited to 10 then armies will all start looking similar. If there's one thing I hate about the meta its when armies all look the same such as when all the imperial armies had tons of shoretroopers and mortars until the errata. Having high activation counts and low activation counts mix up the meta and keep the game interesting. But that's just my two cents

Okay......

1. Activation count topping at 10 (only for tournament play) won't ruin the game. What it does is set a new standard for activation limits, so players can know going into a tournament that there won't be massive swings in activation counts. They'll know that if they want to run a 7/8 count list, they won't be butting heads with someone with 12-14 count lists. 1-3 activation difference is manageable.

2. Please explain to me how low activation is supported by the new cards. Because high activation still comes with 1/2 heavy hitters. The high actions let me get those heavy hitters in advantageous positions to smash your units one at a time. Eventually I'd still get the win.

3. Having to arbitrarily keep your point count low ruins the game, because it forces a race to the bottom.

4. High activation is overpowered. They keep winning tournaments. AKA fake worlds.

5. Shoretroopers and mortars are still the meta. lol

6 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:

Recover the supplies supports low activation armies? Please explain how you believe this is the case.

Sure out of the three I mentioned recover the supplies supports low activations the least but it still does. Lower activations=better units which are generally harder to take down and steal a token from.

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

Okay......

1. Activation count topping at 10 (only for tournament play) won't ruin the game. What it does is set a new standard for activation limits, so players can know going into a tournament that there won't be massive swings in activation counts. They'll know that if they want to run a 7/8 count list, they won't be butting heads with someone with 12-14 count lists. 1-3 activation difference is manageable.

This is just my opinion but I do think it would halt the game from growing much further. Army building would become incredibly bland and the game would lose it's luster. Not knowing what you're going to face is what makes the game and tournaments more interesting. You have to build an army that can face high activations and low activations

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

2. Please explain to me how low activation is supported by the new cards. Because high activation still comes with 1/2 heavy hitters. The high actions let me get those heavy hitters in advantageous positions to smash your units one at a time. Eventually I'd still get the win.

Low activation armies generally have incredibly powerful heavy hitters. These units are either Heavys such as an AT-ST or force users such as Vader. Force units act in close range and thus danger close helps them get to melee while roll out helps any heavys a lot. Hostage exchange starts the game with a corp unit holding your hostage and generally, high activation armies have some really sad excuses for corp units while low activation armies have things like shoretroopers that would be able to escape firepower safer. Bombing run, akin to recover the supplies, requires a select few powerful and survivable units to make it across the board. High activation armies don't have many powerful, survivable units. Also, bombs in general are not fun for high activation armies. You don't have to drop the charge to score the point, one of them can be used to decimate your opponents forces and if they're high activations, there are a lot of units to be hit and boy does that charge hit hard. The new conditions don't support low activations quite as much BUT war weary is a terrible handicap for high activations. A lot of high activation armies only have 1 commander unit and it's impossible for them to keep all their units in range one of that mini. Even if they have 2 commanders, it hampers the strength of high activation armies so much. They have to clump together much more but with low activations, clumping isnt as hard

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

3. Having to arbitrarily keep your point count low ruins the game, because it forces a race to the bottom.

By a high bid for initiative i meant something such as 7-10 points which isn't game ruining at all. High activation armies can't spare those 10 points as easily so it's really not that hard to win the bid it doesn't become a detriment to game play since it basically only effects army building.

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

4. High activation is overpowered. They keep winning tournaments. AKA fake worlds.

They have been winning in the past but even then they weren't unbeatable. Main thing I've stressed is that Vital Assets fixed the problem of high activations. Also, the game has progressed a lot since "fake worlds" and high activations aren't essential.

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

5. Shoretroopers and mortars are still the meta. lol

I was referring to the combination with comms relay. Now that it doesnt work on emplacement troopers the combination doesn't work so they aren't used AS MUCH they're still used because they're good units just not OP. I was just using that as an example though

Just for comparison, the maximum achievable activations for each faction with the known units are:

CIS - 13 (760 points)

1x Grievous (175), 6x B1 (36ea)=216, 3x STAP (73 ea) = 219, 3x BX-Commando strike teams (this is blurry, but I 'think' it's 20 + 30 for the sniper for 50ea) = 150

The only thing preventing more is the lack of a cheap CIS officer unit on par with the Rebel/Imperial officers.

GAR - 12 (752 points)

1x Rex (90), 1x Padme (90), 1x R2-D2 (35), 6x Phase I (52 ea) = 312, 3x BARC Speeder (75 ea) = 225

You could also sub in the AT-RT (65 ea) to save 30 more points, but until we know the ARC Trooper costs, that leaves 78 points to fiddle with.

Empire - 15 (782 points)

2x Imperial Officer (50 ea) = 100, 6x Stormtroopers (44 ea) / 3x Shoretrooper (52 ea) + 3x Mortar (36 ea) = 264, 3x Scout Trooper Strike Teams (46 ea) = 138, 3x E-web (55 ea) = 165, 1x Bossk (115)

Rebels - 16 (753 points)

2x Rebel Officer (50 ea) = 100, 6x Rebel Troopers (40 ea) = 240, 3x Rebel Commandos Strike Team (46 ea) = 138, 3x AT-RT (55 ea) = 165, 1x R2-D2 (35), 1 X-34 (75)

14 hours ago, bllaw said:

Sure out of the three I mentioned recover the supplies supports low activations the least but it still does. Lower activations=better units which are generally harder to take down and steal a token from.

Except this is not true.
Rebels can take Sabine + 3 Tauntauns in a 12 activation list (or drop a Tauntaun to get to 13). Sabine and tauntauns are more than capable of grabbing the center and playing keep away.
Empire can do the same with Iden + Boba Fett and get 12+ activations (Iden gets to infiltrate right on to the box)

Those two lists are not going to lose recover the supplies to something with seven or either activations.

13 hours ago, bllaw said:

By a high bid for initiative i meant something such as 7-10 points which isn't game ruining at all. High activation armies can't spare those 10 points as easily so it's really not that hard to win the bid it doesn't become a detriment to game play since it basically only effects army building.

As I stated on the previous page:

Take a look at this. People are leaving 15+ point bids on the table with 13+ activations. Please tell me how this is productive to balance? The game is far better balanced allowing both armies to max out their points and using activations to determine blue than it is to having a bid war. Keep in mind, that by moving activations to blue, it actually forces the player bidding low on activations to have a sound plan for battle cards, as their opponent could just build an all comers list which is higher activations capable of playing multiple scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6PSlNlGBU

Ultimately, if you they don't move to activations determining blue player, then they have to cap activations somehow. Otherwise new factions will never be able to compete. CIS/GAR cannot compete with 12 activation lists at the moment. Even once BX/Arc units are released, they will still be behind the curve for quite some time. At some point they release release scum (much to the delight of Buckero0 and others) or that nonsense from the latest trilogy masquerading as Star Wars movies. Those new factions will not be able to compete with four other factions which at that point will be completely fleshed out. This current method is untenable.

1 hour ago, Mokoshkana said:

Except this is not true.
Rebels can take Sabine + 3 Tauntauns in a 12 activation list (or drop a Tauntaun to get to 13). Sabine and tauntauns are more than capable of grabbing the center and playing keep away.
Empire can do the same with Iden + Boba Fett and get 12+ activations (Iden gets to infiltrate right on to the box)

Those two lists are not going to lose recover the supplies to something with seven or either activations.

Tauntans can claim tokens? I thought creature troopers couldnt do that but there may have been a recent errata I cant keep up 😂

I am purely speaking from my experience from the game and in my experience, high activation armies have significantly less powerful units than low activations. Generally they'll have 1 powerful trooper 2 at best. I'm obviously not saying high activations are bad they are very powerful, but low activation lists have their strengths too and they balance out pretty well. If people lose playing low activation lists, they can just play high activation lists.

As far as CIS/GAR go, no one expected them to be able to compete well at this point. They are a BRAND NEW faction, they have hardly any units, and all their armies are similar. CIS doesn't even have a commander under 175 so of course they can't get many activations. Granted, GAR will naturally have fewer activations that many other factions but I don't think this is as big of a hindrance as some people think.

Transitioning blue player to lowest activations would definitely help low activation armies a lot, maybe too much since 12+ activations will never ever get to be the blue player. Guess this could be a good thing for balancing if Vital Assets don't balance out the meta

33 minutes ago, bllaw said:

Tauntans can claim tokens? I thought creature troopers couldnt do that but there may have been a recent errata I cant keep up 😂

I apologize, I made a mistake. You are correct. I was going off of the card and missed this from the RRG: "Creature troopers cannot use the “Claim” or “Sabotage/Repair” abilities." They do still have the ability to run down units in the middle and stop the box from going anywhere.

34 minutes ago, bllaw said:

I am purely speaking from my experience from the game and in my experience, high activation armies have significantly less powerful units than low activations. Generally they'll have 1 powerful trooper 2 at best. I'm obviously not saying high activations are bad they are very powerful, but low activation lists have their strengths too and they balance out pretty well. If people lose playing low activation lists, they can just play high activation lists.

As far as CIS/GAR go, no one expected them to be able to compete well at this point. They are a BRAND NEW faction, they have hardly any units, and all their armies are similar. CIS doesn't even have a commander under 175 so of course they can't get many activations. Granted, GAR will naturally have fewer activations that many other factions but I don't think this is as big of a hindrance as some people think.

Low activation list strengths don't cover up enough of the disparity that comes from facing high activation list strengths. And the unit imbalance prevents the "they can just play high activation lists" statement from being true. Can CIS/GAR do high activation units? No, and while they will be able to do so shortly, it will not be the same caliber as Rebel/Empire lists because the new factions have not caught up. Even when they do, a new faction or two could be released that will start this entire issue over again. Yes, they are new factions, but since fantasy flight does not seem to have plans to either restrict them from tournaments or give them their own for the time being, the game needs to be balanced for all factions. Folks are talking about some changes that can be bad for the game. You know what is bad for the game? Telling someone who has waited for a specific faction to get into the game that they just have to suck it up and lose for the next X months until they get catch up.

37 minutes ago, bllaw said:

Transitioning blue player to lowest activations would definitely help low activation armies a lot, maybe too much since 12+ activations will never ever get to be the blue player. Guess this could be a good thing for balancing if Vital Assets don't balance out the meta

That's the whole point behind the move "blue player to fewer activations" movement. More activations is inherently stronger then less, so balance things out by giving the fewer activations the benefit of choosing the mission/deployment/condition cards. This will result in crazy amounts of list variance as people now have to determine whether they want to go for blue, or try to max out activations and just beat the blue player at their own mission.

3 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:

Low activation list strengths don't cover up enough of the disparity that comes from facing high activation list strengths. And the unit imbalance prevents the "they can just play high activation lists" statement from being true. Can CIS/GAR do high activation units? No, and while they will be able to do so shortly, it will not be the same caliber as Rebel/Empire lists because the new factions have not caught up. Even when they do, a new faction or two could be released that will start this entire issue over again. Yes, they are new factions, but since fantasy flight does not seem to have plans to either restrict them from tournaments or give them their own for the time being, the game needs to be balanced for all factions. Folks are talking about some changes that can be bad for the game. You know what is bad for the game? Telling someone who has waited for a specific faction to get into the game that they just have to suck it up and lose for the next X months until they get catch up.

The game cannot be balanced for brand new factions or rules would be changing way too often. And the argument that new factions aren't usable in tournaments honestly makes no sense to me seeing as in the most recent Invader League season, CIS and GAR both have a massive appearance of users. They both have low activations and yet they're being used. These factions aren't unbalanced at all and they aren't obsolete by any standard. FFG did a great job balancing the factions quickly.

2 hours ago, bllaw said:

These factions aren't unbalanced at all and they aren't obsolete by any standard. FFG did a great job balancing the factions quickly.

Absolutely this. Once Dooku and B2s hit the mat, I've never once felt like I was at a disadvantage for playing CIS. Even a cheap commander doesn't even feel needed since they actually got the balance for Grievous and Dooku right. Heck Commando droids look like one of the best SF units in the game, and I'm excited to field full squads of them rather than strike teams.

20 hours ago, bllaw said:

The game cannot be balanced for brand new factions or rules would be changing way too often. And the argument that new factions aren't usable in tournaments honestly makes no sense to me seeing as in the most recent Invader League season, CIS and GAR both have a massive appearance of users. They both have low activations and yet they're being used. These factions aren't unbalanced at all and they aren't obsolete by any standard. FFG did a great job balancing the factions quickly.

Yes, the game can be balanced for all factions. Will the balance be perfect? No, of course not. When a new faction(s) release next, the easiest way to balance is the ensure that they have additional commanders/corps/support/heavy available at launch instead of spreading it out over 6 months.

17 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Absolutely this. Once Dooku and B2s hit the mat, I've never once felt like I was at a disadvantage for playing CIS. Even a cheap commander doesn't even feel needed since they actually got the balance for Grievous and Dooku right. Heck Commando droids look like one of the best SF units in the game, and I'm excited to field full squads of them rather than strike teams.

I agree wholeheartedly that Dooku and B2s changed the ability for CIS to compete. Once Cad Bane/BX Droids release, perhaps that will allow CIS to compete with 13+ Activation Lists using 15 point bids. Right now though, its going to be an uphill struggle because they don't have the activations to compete.

1 hour ago, Mokoshkana said:

When a new faction(s) release next, the easiest way to balance is the ensure that they have additional commanders/corps/support/heavy available at launch instead of spreading it out over 6 months.

Oh don't get me wrong I would love to have more GAR and CIS units released immediately so they could be balanced but it's difficult for FFG to keep up releasing that much stuff. They just can't do it and they also know that if they release units over 6 months, players are more likely to buy more stuff over a long period of time than all at once.

this game was more or less made second edition proof thanks to the living rulebook and their pretty liberal use of points and erata to balance stuff.

if this game adds scatter im out. extra steps in attack resolution are a big rabbit hole I dont want them to go down. look at 40K's 6 dice rolls to resolve a single attack once all the special rules get stacked on top of each other.

19 minutes ago, TylerTT said:

this game was more or less made second edition proof thanks to the living rulebook and their pretty liberal use of points and erata to balance stuff.

if this game adds scatter im out. extra steps in attack resolution are a big rabbit hole I dont want them to go down. look at 40K's 6 dice rolls to resolve a single attack once all the special rules get stacked on top of each other.

Scatter is already in the game...

25 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

Scatter is already in the game...

Obviously means 40k scatter from 7th edition. In the event you are not familiar with it, it used blast templates to determine the number of models hit by the attack, and d6 to "scatter" the templates randomly or hit directly depending on how one rolled. Not a fun mechanic.

1 hour ago, Mokoshkana said:

Obviously means 40k scatter from 7th edition. In the event you are not familiar with it, it used blast templates to determine the number of models hit by the attack, and d6 to "scatter" the templates randomly or hit directly depending on how one rolled. Not a fun mechanic.

Aha, I actually am familiar with that. Thank you for the explanation. I would rather that not make it into the game either. I'm not even a fan of templates. Awkwardly hovering a pie plate over the battlefield while arguing with your opponent about which models it is floating over is not my idea of fun.

#IstandwithNuteGunray

Something to hurt activation spam.

It's a shame Luke, Obi, and Vader don't see as much table time. The day CIS gets a cheap commander is the day Dooku and GG will likely fade out of competitive play.

I'd be fine with dropping strike teams completely. Or making them corps (so they at least compete with other cheap activations).

FFG may even need to reevaluate their points cost. I love games with alternating activations, but those systems inevitably favor factions with high activations.