Jump to content

brettpkelly

Members
  • Content Count

    561
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from Tvboy in The IACP can't truly balance Skirmish without swarms   
    As a member of the steering committee and probably the one who is most cautious about pushing "swarms" allow me to respond to your well thought out post. For reference my idea of balance comes from high end competitive play, especially in timed tournament formats. I will also add that I do have experience playing swarms in this format, both as a swarm (won nationals with an ugnaught swarm '17) and against swarms (faced the Janway riot swarm aka North Carolina Swarm at nationals '18).
    So we're on the same page lets define what a swarm is:
    A list that utilizes a large group of low value figures that don't offer significant reward for killing. These lists often have low damage output, but make up for it by dominating objectives with high figure counts. 
    First, I think it's worth noting that the steering committee is committed to keeping the meta fresh and fun, which to us means a variety of archetypes should be viable. We would like to take a slow approach to achieving this, meaning we don't want to completely shake things up to a point where the meta is unrecognizable. 
    Another goal is increasing the number of units that are viable. There is a limit on how many units can be viable, just due to the fact that many units are very similar to each other. From that sense, the units that have the best cost/health/damage ratios will generally rise to the top. 
    So let's talk about regular deployments. Functionally a regular stormtrooper could be buffed to being as good as an elite stormtrooper making the only difference the number of deployments you're allowed to bring. Elites could also be buffed via point deductions to fill the role of cheap swarmy units, without allowing players to bring 4 groups. 
    By limiting the number of groups players can bring, lists will be less homogeneous. Elite stormtroopers could be paired with Elite jets, Elite Riots, and Regular riots to make a good swarm. 
    Compare that to buffing regular stormtroopers. If regular stormtroopers become the go-to swarm unit, swarm units will automatically have 4 groups. It's very very hard to balance the units to a point where it would be worth it to bring less than a full complement (either they're worth bringing and you take 4 groups, or they're not worth bringing at all). 
    The limit of 2 groups presents all kinds of design benefits and I think it's worth noting that FFG has also almost universally under-powered regular deployments. 
    Also consider that a swarm list CAN be achieved without requiring 4x of a regular deployment
    With those design goals in mind we have focused on the elite deployments for now. 
     
    As far as whether swarms can be NPE or if they slow the game down here is a long rant about it. Keep in mind i'm not completely against a swarm archetype, but it's important to be conscious of how this type of archetype can potentially affect the game. 
    Keep this in mind-> The more figures on the board, the longer each round will take. This is especially true for units that need to take advanced positions such as riots.
    The biggest slowdowns in the game are players deciding which group to activate next, and where to move each figure. For support figures like 3p0, r2, jabba, and imperial officers activations are very quick. These figures are always activated first in round 1, and their priority drops significantly in later rounds, cutting the time to decide which group to activate. These figures often don't move into contested positions so their activations are very straight forward. A riot swarm from very early in round 1 must make difficult decisions regarding the position of their figures compared to where their opponent is postured. Often these units are left exposed from as early as the 3rd activation round 1. Often the first group of riots takes as long or longer to activate as a group of weequays, or a big queen piece. 
    Consider that the N.C. riot swarm has 6 groups of riots to activate (and 2 officers). While round 1 for most lists flies by, the swarm player has tough choices to make for each of these activations. By the end of round 1 the riot player has spent significantly longer activating compared to the non-swarm player. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with intentionally stalling, this is just the nature of the list. Starting round 2 the riot player still takes longer to play, especially in choosing which group to activate next. 
    It has been claimed that since the figures are exactly the same, they should activate faster, but the opposite is true in later rounds. Since the figures are so similar, it's solely positioning that determines which group a player should activate next. This is often a very subtle and very time consuming decision. The decision of when to activate groups that vary wildly in power level is much easier than choosing which riot group to activate. (example: early round 2, do I activate Rangers first or Hera? Usually an easy choice). 
    Swarm players also have an incentive to slow the game down. The queen lists win by killing the swarm. The swarm list wins by getting ahead on objective points and then stalling the game until time expires. In a tournament setting with 65 minute matches, swarms will often not get out of round 3 and almost never out of round 4. Time is often called on these matches with scores in the 20-30 VP range. There is no bigger NPE than this. Again this is not achieved by intentionally stalling, but just a natural effect of the list. The riot player would need to rush to keep up the pace of play with other lists, but has no reason to rush. The non-swarm player actually needs to play as fast as possible to ensure that round 4 is reached. 
    To buff the swarm archetype means buffing the ability for the archetype to stall. Making swarm units cheaper increases the number of figures on the board, increasing the number of decisions/activations, slowing the game down. Increasing the health of these units makes them harder to kill, making more units left on the board in later rounds that need to activate, slowing the game down. Increasing their attack moves their playstyle closer in line with other types of lists, defeating the purpose of a "swarm" archetype. 
    In conclusion, I think swarms are achievable, but buffing regular deployments to the point of viability will make it harder to increase the number of viable units. Point denial strategies have the potential to be extremely frustrating, and we need to be conscious about how powerful we make units capable of achieving this strategy. I'd also like to add that if you feel that you have a good idea to balance a cheap regular deployment group like regular stormtroopers, we're listening. 
     
  2. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to angelman2 in AMA with Andrew Navaro   
    Hi, Andrew Navaro,

    Any chance you could revive Imperial Assault in 2020 for some awesome new waves?  I need more IA in my life!
    Each and every box expansion has pushed the envelope for Imperial Assault beyond anything a poor consumer could have anticipated, and there is SO much more you could do with this game  

    An Imperial Assault 2.0 would also be cool. Thanks.

    Love,
    VE
  3. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to maddwarfer in AMA with Andrew Navaro   
    Hi Andrew, thanks so much for doing this!
    I absolutely love Imperial Assault and was gutted to hear that there aren't currently any plans to produce more physical content. There's nothing quite like experiencing the thrill of something tangible being added to your favourite board game and the anticipation of actually getting hold of it to paint/admire/play with/kill. The campaign boxes have been following a very clear path to coincide with the original trilogy films, aside from the two excellent Rebels-themed expansions, and after Jabba's Realm there isn't a player in existence who wasn't expecting and anticipating an Endor box to finish off that major trend. It seems so strange to take us so far and then decide to pull the plug at the last step. It's almost like watching 5 series of your favourite show and then having to suffer the agony of it being cancelled before being able to see it to its conclusion.
    Do you have the intention of at least making this expansion in the future? Maybe when Legion production has waned enough to squeeze us into a development slot?
    Again, thanks a lot for taking the time to answer our burning questions!
  4. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to DTDanix in [RIAST Rules] The other community driven rebalancing project   
    This mostly looks like huge nerfs to merc (Jabba, pirates, greedo, Vinto (really?), scheme, rebel support) and some nerfs for empire (jets, DP) while buffing a few things that will still be irrelevant (heavy storms at 4 speed are still not playable.  ewebs at 7 and 5 is still a joke, eTrandos at 9 are still too weak).  Pretty much all buffs on the rebel side of things (Luke at 10 wow) yet they didn't have any of their commonly played pieces nerfed (sabine, gideon, 3p0, hera).
    I do like the idea of readying deployment cards can only be done on your turn and not as last activation.  That's a good nerf to the stupidity of luke/IG.
    I'd have to play with the round/init changes to get a better idea, but at first glance it seems like it has potential.  I don't know if there are any weird things that crop up from doing things this way though, like always getting to go first in a round if you have less guys.
    I'd be very worried han/drok or rangers type lists are just going to be unstoppable.  Merc lost everything they had to compete and empire looks like they're stuck with Vader unless someone can get the ATs to work, but jets basically got removed from the game.
     
    That's my first impressions from scanning the changes more in depth.
  5. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from SushiCATNZ in The IACP can't truly balance Skirmish without swarms   
    As a member of the steering committee and probably the one who is most cautious about pushing "swarms" allow me to respond to your well thought out post. For reference my idea of balance comes from high end competitive play, especially in timed tournament formats. I will also add that I do have experience playing swarms in this format, both as a swarm (won nationals with an ugnaught swarm '17) and against swarms (faced the Janway riot swarm aka North Carolina Swarm at nationals '18).
    So we're on the same page lets define what a swarm is:
    A list that utilizes a large group of low value figures that don't offer significant reward for killing. These lists often have low damage output, but make up for it by dominating objectives with high figure counts. 
    First, I think it's worth noting that the steering committee is committed to keeping the meta fresh and fun, which to us means a variety of archetypes should be viable. We would like to take a slow approach to achieving this, meaning we don't want to completely shake things up to a point where the meta is unrecognizable. 
    Another goal is increasing the number of units that are viable. There is a limit on how many units can be viable, just due to the fact that many units are very similar to each other. From that sense, the units that have the best cost/health/damage ratios will generally rise to the top. 
    So let's talk about regular deployments. Functionally a regular stormtrooper could be buffed to being as good as an elite stormtrooper making the only difference the number of deployments you're allowed to bring. Elites could also be buffed via point deductions to fill the role of cheap swarmy units, without allowing players to bring 4 groups. 
    By limiting the number of groups players can bring, lists will be less homogeneous. Elite stormtroopers could be paired with Elite jets, Elite Riots, and Regular riots to make a good swarm. 
    Compare that to buffing regular stormtroopers. If regular stormtroopers become the go-to swarm unit, swarm units will automatically have 4 groups. It's very very hard to balance the units to a point where it would be worth it to bring less than a full complement (either they're worth bringing and you take 4 groups, or they're not worth bringing at all). 
    The limit of 2 groups presents all kinds of design benefits and I think it's worth noting that FFG has also almost universally under-powered regular deployments. 
    Also consider that a swarm list CAN be achieved without requiring 4x of a regular deployment
    With those design goals in mind we have focused on the elite deployments for now. 
     
    As far as whether swarms can be NPE or if they slow the game down here is a long rant about it. Keep in mind i'm not completely against a swarm archetype, but it's important to be conscious of how this type of archetype can potentially affect the game. 
    Keep this in mind-> The more figures on the board, the longer each round will take. This is especially true for units that need to take advanced positions such as riots.
    The biggest slowdowns in the game are players deciding which group to activate next, and where to move each figure. For support figures like 3p0, r2, jabba, and imperial officers activations are very quick. These figures are always activated first in round 1, and their priority drops significantly in later rounds, cutting the time to decide which group to activate. These figures often don't move into contested positions so their activations are very straight forward. A riot swarm from very early in round 1 must make difficult decisions regarding the position of their figures compared to where their opponent is postured. Often these units are left exposed from as early as the 3rd activation round 1. Often the first group of riots takes as long or longer to activate as a group of weequays, or a big queen piece. 
    Consider that the N.C. riot swarm has 6 groups of riots to activate (and 2 officers). While round 1 for most lists flies by, the swarm player has tough choices to make for each of these activations. By the end of round 1 the riot player has spent significantly longer activating compared to the non-swarm player. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with intentionally stalling, this is just the nature of the list. Starting round 2 the riot player still takes longer to play, especially in choosing which group to activate next. 
    It has been claimed that since the figures are exactly the same, they should activate faster, but the opposite is true in later rounds. Since the figures are so similar, it's solely positioning that determines which group a player should activate next. This is often a very subtle and very time consuming decision. The decision of when to activate groups that vary wildly in power level is much easier than choosing which riot group to activate. (example: early round 2, do I activate Rangers first or Hera? Usually an easy choice). 
    Swarm players also have an incentive to slow the game down. The queen lists win by killing the swarm. The swarm list wins by getting ahead on objective points and then stalling the game until time expires. In a tournament setting with 65 minute matches, swarms will often not get out of round 3 and almost never out of round 4. Time is often called on these matches with scores in the 20-30 VP range. There is no bigger NPE than this. Again this is not achieved by intentionally stalling, but just a natural effect of the list. The riot player would need to rush to keep up the pace of play with other lists, but has no reason to rush. The non-swarm player actually needs to play as fast as possible to ensure that round 4 is reached. 
    To buff the swarm archetype means buffing the ability for the archetype to stall. Making swarm units cheaper increases the number of figures on the board, increasing the number of decisions/activations, slowing the game down. Increasing the health of these units makes them harder to kill, making more units left on the board in later rounds that need to activate, slowing the game down. Increasing their attack moves their playstyle closer in line with other types of lists, defeating the purpose of a "swarm" archetype. 
    In conclusion, I think swarms are achievable, but buffing regular deployments to the point of viability will make it harder to increase the number of viable units. Point denial strategies have the potential to be extremely frustrating, and we need to be conscious about how powerful we make units capable of achieving this strategy. I'd also like to add that if you feel that you have a good idea to balance a cheap regular deployment group like regular stormtroopers, we're listening. 
     
  6. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from Jarema in The IACP can't truly balance Skirmish without swarms   
    I'm all for a chess block but there are a couple other complications. Due to the prevalence of interrupt type mechanics it's hard to determine when to stop the clock for each player, especially during attacks. Might be worth figuring out how to implement something like this though
  7. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from Mandalore of the Rings in The IACP can't truly balance Skirmish without swarms   
    As a member of the steering committee and probably the one who is most cautious about pushing "swarms" allow me to respond to your well thought out post. For reference my idea of balance comes from high end competitive play, especially in timed tournament formats. I will also add that I do have experience playing swarms in this format, both as a swarm (won nationals with an ugnaught swarm '17) and against swarms (faced the Janway riot swarm aka North Carolina Swarm at nationals '18).
    So we're on the same page lets define what a swarm is:
    A list that utilizes a large group of low value figures that don't offer significant reward for killing. These lists often have low damage output, but make up for it by dominating objectives with high figure counts. 
    First, I think it's worth noting that the steering committee is committed to keeping the meta fresh and fun, which to us means a variety of archetypes should be viable. We would like to take a slow approach to achieving this, meaning we don't want to completely shake things up to a point where the meta is unrecognizable. 
    Another goal is increasing the number of units that are viable. There is a limit on how many units can be viable, just due to the fact that many units are very similar to each other. From that sense, the units that have the best cost/health/damage ratios will generally rise to the top. 
    So let's talk about regular deployments. Functionally a regular stormtrooper could be buffed to being as good as an elite stormtrooper making the only difference the number of deployments you're allowed to bring. Elites could also be buffed via point deductions to fill the role of cheap swarmy units, without allowing players to bring 4 groups. 
    By limiting the number of groups players can bring, lists will be less homogeneous. Elite stormtroopers could be paired with Elite jets, Elite Riots, and Regular riots to make a good swarm. 
    Compare that to buffing regular stormtroopers. If regular stormtroopers become the go-to swarm unit, swarm units will automatically have 4 groups. It's very very hard to balance the units to a point where it would be worth it to bring less than a full complement (either they're worth bringing and you take 4 groups, or they're not worth bringing at all). 
    The limit of 2 groups presents all kinds of design benefits and I think it's worth noting that FFG has also almost universally under-powered regular deployments. 
    Also consider that a swarm list CAN be achieved without requiring 4x of a regular deployment
    With those design goals in mind we have focused on the elite deployments for now. 
     
    As far as whether swarms can be NPE or if they slow the game down here is a long rant about it. Keep in mind i'm not completely against a swarm archetype, but it's important to be conscious of how this type of archetype can potentially affect the game. 
    Keep this in mind-> The more figures on the board, the longer each round will take. This is especially true for units that need to take advanced positions such as riots.
    The biggest slowdowns in the game are players deciding which group to activate next, and where to move each figure. For support figures like 3p0, r2, jabba, and imperial officers activations are very quick. These figures are always activated first in round 1, and their priority drops significantly in later rounds, cutting the time to decide which group to activate. These figures often don't move into contested positions so their activations are very straight forward. A riot swarm from very early in round 1 must make difficult decisions regarding the position of their figures compared to where their opponent is postured. Often these units are left exposed from as early as the 3rd activation round 1. Often the first group of riots takes as long or longer to activate as a group of weequays, or a big queen piece. 
    Consider that the N.C. riot swarm has 6 groups of riots to activate (and 2 officers). While round 1 for most lists flies by, the swarm player has tough choices to make for each of these activations. By the end of round 1 the riot player has spent significantly longer activating compared to the non-swarm player. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with intentionally stalling, this is just the nature of the list. Starting round 2 the riot player still takes longer to play, especially in choosing which group to activate next. 
    It has been claimed that since the figures are exactly the same, they should activate faster, but the opposite is true in later rounds. Since the figures are so similar, it's solely positioning that determines which group a player should activate next. This is often a very subtle and very time consuming decision. The decision of when to activate groups that vary wildly in power level is much easier than choosing which riot group to activate. (example: early round 2, do I activate Rangers first or Hera? Usually an easy choice). 
    Swarm players also have an incentive to slow the game down. The queen lists win by killing the swarm. The swarm list wins by getting ahead on objective points and then stalling the game until time expires. In a tournament setting with 65 minute matches, swarms will often not get out of round 3 and almost never out of round 4. Time is often called on these matches with scores in the 20-30 VP range. There is no bigger NPE than this. Again this is not achieved by intentionally stalling, but just a natural effect of the list. The riot player would need to rush to keep up the pace of play with other lists, but has no reason to rush. The non-swarm player actually needs to play as fast as possible to ensure that round 4 is reached. 
    To buff the swarm archetype means buffing the ability for the archetype to stall. Making swarm units cheaper increases the number of figures on the board, increasing the number of decisions/activations, slowing the game down. Increasing the health of these units makes them harder to kill, making more units left on the board in later rounds that need to activate, slowing the game down. Increasing their attack moves their playstyle closer in line with other types of lists, defeating the purpose of a "swarm" archetype. 
    In conclusion, I think swarms are achievable, but buffing regular deployments to the point of viability will make it harder to increase the number of viable units. Point denial strategies have the potential to be extremely frustrating, and we need to be conscious about how powerful we make units capable of achieving this strategy. I'd also like to add that if you feel that you have a good idea to balance a cheap regular deployment group like regular stormtroopers, we're listening. 
     
  8. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from a1bert in The IACP can't truly balance Skirmish without swarms   
    As a member of the steering committee and probably the one who is most cautious about pushing "swarms" allow me to respond to your well thought out post. For reference my idea of balance comes from high end competitive play, especially in timed tournament formats. I will also add that I do have experience playing swarms in this format, both as a swarm (won nationals with an ugnaught swarm '17) and against swarms (faced the Janway riot swarm aka North Carolina Swarm at nationals '18).
    So we're on the same page lets define what a swarm is:
    A list that utilizes a large group of low value figures that don't offer significant reward for killing. These lists often have low damage output, but make up for it by dominating objectives with high figure counts. 
    First, I think it's worth noting that the steering committee is committed to keeping the meta fresh and fun, which to us means a variety of archetypes should be viable. We would like to take a slow approach to achieving this, meaning we don't want to completely shake things up to a point where the meta is unrecognizable. 
    Another goal is increasing the number of units that are viable. There is a limit on how many units can be viable, just due to the fact that many units are very similar to each other. From that sense, the units that have the best cost/health/damage ratios will generally rise to the top. 
    So let's talk about regular deployments. Functionally a regular stormtrooper could be buffed to being as good as an elite stormtrooper making the only difference the number of deployments you're allowed to bring. Elites could also be buffed via point deductions to fill the role of cheap swarmy units, without allowing players to bring 4 groups. 
    By limiting the number of groups players can bring, lists will be less homogeneous. Elite stormtroopers could be paired with Elite jets, Elite Riots, and Regular riots to make a good swarm. 
    Compare that to buffing regular stormtroopers. If regular stormtroopers become the go-to swarm unit, swarm units will automatically have 4 groups. It's very very hard to balance the units to a point where it would be worth it to bring less than a full complement (either they're worth bringing and you take 4 groups, or they're not worth bringing at all). 
    The limit of 2 groups presents all kinds of design benefits and I think it's worth noting that FFG has also almost universally under-powered regular deployments. 
    Also consider that a swarm list CAN be achieved without requiring 4x of a regular deployment
    With those design goals in mind we have focused on the elite deployments for now. 
     
    As far as whether swarms can be NPE or if they slow the game down here is a long rant about it. Keep in mind i'm not completely against a swarm archetype, but it's important to be conscious of how this type of archetype can potentially affect the game. 
    Keep this in mind-> The more figures on the board, the longer each round will take. This is especially true for units that need to take advanced positions such as riots.
    The biggest slowdowns in the game are players deciding which group to activate next, and where to move each figure. For support figures like 3p0, r2, jabba, and imperial officers activations are very quick. These figures are always activated first in round 1, and their priority drops significantly in later rounds, cutting the time to decide which group to activate. These figures often don't move into contested positions so their activations are very straight forward. A riot swarm from very early in round 1 must make difficult decisions regarding the position of their figures compared to where their opponent is postured. Often these units are left exposed from as early as the 3rd activation round 1. Often the first group of riots takes as long or longer to activate as a group of weequays, or a big queen piece. 
    Consider that the N.C. riot swarm has 6 groups of riots to activate (and 2 officers). While round 1 for most lists flies by, the swarm player has tough choices to make for each of these activations. By the end of round 1 the riot player has spent significantly longer activating compared to the non-swarm player. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with intentionally stalling, this is just the nature of the list. Starting round 2 the riot player still takes longer to play, especially in choosing which group to activate next. 
    It has been claimed that since the figures are exactly the same, they should activate faster, but the opposite is true in later rounds. Since the figures are so similar, it's solely positioning that determines which group a player should activate next. This is often a very subtle and very time consuming decision. The decision of when to activate groups that vary wildly in power level is much easier than choosing which riot group to activate. (example: early round 2, do I activate Rangers first or Hera? Usually an easy choice). 
    Swarm players also have an incentive to slow the game down. The queen lists win by killing the swarm. The swarm list wins by getting ahead on objective points and then stalling the game until time expires. In a tournament setting with 65 minute matches, swarms will often not get out of round 3 and almost never out of round 4. Time is often called on these matches with scores in the 20-30 VP range. There is no bigger NPE than this. Again this is not achieved by intentionally stalling, but just a natural effect of the list. The riot player would need to rush to keep up the pace of play with other lists, but has no reason to rush. The non-swarm player actually needs to play as fast as possible to ensure that round 4 is reached. 
    To buff the swarm archetype means buffing the ability for the archetype to stall. Making swarm units cheaper increases the number of figures on the board, increasing the number of decisions/activations, slowing the game down. Increasing the health of these units makes them harder to kill, making more units left on the board in later rounds that need to activate, slowing the game down. Increasing their attack moves their playstyle closer in line with other types of lists, defeating the purpose of a "swarm" archetype. 
    In conclusion, I think swarms are achievable, but buffing regular deployments to the point of viability will make it harder to increase the number of viable units. Point denial strategies have the potential to be extremely frustrating, and we need to be conscious about how powerful we make units capable of achieving this strategy. I'd also like to add that if you feel that you have a good idea to balance a cheap regular deployment group like regular stormtroopers, we're listening. 
     
  9. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to cnemmick in [IACP] Season 1 Testing League Now Available   
    If you're looking to try out IACP changes in an organized play setting, I'm happy to announce that the project has organized a Vassal league that starts May 13th and ends June 30th. Players will be given 7 days to play their assigned opponent and report the winner.

    More details about the league can be found here: http://ia-continuityproject.com/2019/05/07/strength-in-numbers-season-1-testing-league-now-open/
    Registration ends May 12th.
  10. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    That seems like the least elegant solution to me.  I'd much rather prefer to dilute Gideon via competitive options as opposed to banning.  The more hard choices I have to make when list building the more interesting I find the process.  
  11. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    I tend to agree with you also, we've seen a lot less gideon temped into merc lately. It's more common to see sabine these days. Which means nerfing gideon doesn't actually change much besides decreasing merc's options. If we restricted gideon to rebel only then jabba becomes auto include. To me that's worse than the current meta where the are a couple viable variations of merc support packages.
  12. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Gallanteer in No plans for new physical product for Imperial Assault   
    Still refusing to buy into the dark side....... Legion.
  13. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    https://ia-continuityproject.com/2019/04/29/brace-for-impact-season-1-official-update/
  14. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    A reasonable concern.  I have to test this, but based on theory crafting, I think this provides a similar level of value that Gideon brings to a Scum list.  
    I still think a focus is better than 1-3 wild power tokens, but the clawdite has some increased versitility and trait synergy with scum lists that makes up for it.
  15. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    I agree with you in theory, but I'd be worried about making a spy/hunter unit into a very good low cost support. Mak still sees some play solely for his spy trait. 
  16. Like
    brettpkelly got a reaction from ManateeX in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    https://ia-continuityproject.com/2019/04/29/brace-for-impact-season-1-official-update/
  17. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to cnemmick in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    If you're using @Bitterman's awesome list builder, you can import the IACP v1.2 cards and data directly into your Kensai Tools Suite: https://ia-continuityproject.com/2019/04/29/iacp-patch-for-kensai-tools-suite/
  18. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    Alternatively, creating a new support figure (4lom for example) would also solve this issue, although I get we're trying to stay away from that for the time being.
  19. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Jaric256 in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    A buff to clawdites might alleviate the fact that most scum lists include some variation of the rebel care package.  Why bring a regular clawdite as a support figure when I can just temp alliance Gideon and get a better support figure for the same cost?
  20. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Rikalonius in IACP Season 1 Official Patch 1.2   
    I completely understand, and I know my suggestion is a huge change, and I brought it up with a mind towards the future.  It is just a thought I've had for a while that this figure change brought to the surface.  
  21. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Mandalore of the Rings in Checking in after 1 week of the IA continuity project!   
    A "tabletop admiral" type list building tool would be very helpful for new players.  It would save having to look at the PDF and then use tabletop admiral for the official prices.  I don't know how hard that would be though... just sayin'    Maybe the tabletopadmiral creator could easily add IACP costs to this site?
    Really enjoyed my IACP Jedi list.  Next time I'm gonna run a reinvigorated wookies list!
  22. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to ManateeX in Checking in after 1 week of the IA continuity project!   
    My biggest problem with making spam units super viable is a more practical one.  If the game lasts 65 minutes and you're waiting for your opponent to move and shoot with 12 different regular stormtrooper figures each round, the game is most likely either going to feel too short or too rushed (particularly if said opponent is... a bit less than quick with his/her moves).
  23. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to Fightwookies in Checking in after 1 week of the IA continuity project!   
    recosting goal should be to make it possible to bring units, not to decrease anything to the point that it's is an auto include. that just creates more problems, especially with generic units like storm troopers that can be spammed. if 5 is where they are worth discussing as an option, even if you go a different route, then they should probably be at 5.
  24. Like
    brettpkelly reacted to aermet69 in IA Continuity Project - Our Community-Focused Effort to Improve Skirmish   
    I promised to take this to my gaming group as well. As of now, only SC is banned next monday - but I'll take the topic up and 'hope' people will be on board with at least giving it a chance. They do seem a bit hesitant though.
  25. Thanks
    brettpkelly reacted to IndyPendant in IA Continuity Project - Our Community-Focused Effort to Improve Skirmish   
    Okay, a bit late to the party, but I wanted to have the discussion with my local play group first--and then the FFG bomb dropped, prompting even more discussion.

    So!  Most importantly, I wanted to take a moment to -sincerely- thank the IACP members, particularly the face members @cnemmick and @brettpkelly.  Implementing something on this scale--in both time invested and future commitment--is truly a gift to the community, regardless of what comes of it.  It also takes quite a lot of courage to face the feedback, constructive and otherwise, that has (and will continue to) come from the community; pleasing everyone will be flat-out impossible no matter what you do, and when the stated goal is pretty much to improve the game for the community's enjoyment...that can start to look impossible! ; )  You don't have to do any of this.  It's a -ton- of work.  And at least some of the armchair-quarterback responses you will get will make it seem thankless as well.
    Your timing could hardly have been better though; quite literally days after your announcement we all learned that FFG has indeed abandoned IA (Skirmish, anyway), at what amounts to a near nadir in terms of current game balance as well.  I don't think it's too much hyperbole to predict that, if IA Skirmish is still being commonly played in a few years, it will largely be due to the IACP's direct efforts.  So again, thank you all very much for this.

    My local community has decided to adopt the IACP's house rules, with a few modifications.  I'm going to encourage them to send in feedback as well, after we get a few games and tournaments in.  You can certainly expect feedback and suggestions from me in a few weeks! : )
×
×
  • Create New...