Jump to content

ricope

Members
  • Content Count

    515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ricope

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

916 profile views
  1. heroes' class cards cannot be traded
  2. I'm well in favor and I don't think I'd miss it if all 3 (C-3PO, Gideon, Jabba) are banned: during casual skirmish games all 3 are already banned in my group The problem is that once someone has an extra Focus their damage ceiling usually immediately gets bumped +2 (50% chance) or +3 at the best (33% chance), there's only 1/6 of the dice doing nothing or adds only +1 damage I remember once in an all-out battle (nothing is off-limit) I played Rebel and I did like 8 or 9 damage in 1 shot to an AT-DP (or was it AT-ST?) with a Focused Rogue Han Solo + command cards such as Tools for the Job
  3. Rebel Troopers? then perhaps give them Nexu's Cunning? For every evade you get an extra block or maybe "if you're adjacent to a friendly trooper, apply +1 evade"? those are just some ideas, but I just don't feel like point reduction and giving more firepower to the weaker figures solves the core problem, we might be able to get something if we went the opposite direction and give defensive buffs instead, that I think is an idea I can see working out
  4. I understand that, that's why I mentioned HP or defensive buff bonus, or something that disincentive other figures shooting at them, instead of a mass-scale point reduction: being shot for 4 damage isn't so bad if you know your opponent still need to chew through another 8 HP For example (untested, just some thoughts off top of my head), as crappy as Rebel Troopers are, what if you give them "Lucky" (may treat blank side as dodge)? what if Wing Guards's "Keep the Peace" just said "attacker suffer 1 strain" without taking on the strain themselves? what if Stormtroopers have eGamo's defense ability (apply +1 block for all ranged attacks against you)? what if you give Wampas a way to recover? what if ISBs have an ability that said "Shadow: if the attacker have 3 dice as attack pool, you may remove 1 dice from it"?
  5. This I strongly disagree. Damage ceiling, or maximal damage possible should be minimized at all costs. Things like this is why it is possible to remove Han Solo or Leia or Sorin in one shot. In other words, such moves (having nearly 20% or more of your army being wiped out in 1 shot) should not even happen regardless of how many cards you burn or how good the attacker is, because 1. it literally gives the defender no time to respond (ex. Recovery, run away) 2. there's really not much the defender can do about it (it's just a "HA, I GOT THE CARDS, IN YOUR FACE!" move) 3. I'd argue such scenario ruins player experience: sure it's fun when I'm the attacker but it's really crappy when I'm the defender: I was expecting perhaps he'd be 20% or 30% injured, not 100% (depending on figures of course, I don't expect eStorm (3) to survive an attack from Vader (13), but I do expect my rTrando (3) to live for perhaps another 1-2 actions after being shot by eRanger (4) or my Han Solo (12) to live for perhaps another 2-3 actions after he got shot by IG-88 (12)) hmm good point, I haven't really considered the counters to the non-nerfed ones and the risk of having single-figure-domination meta just because we forgot to nerf something. I'm partially convinced that buffing weaker ones is the way to go, however with some caveats: 1. This still doesn't fix the issue where most units can get easily removed in 1 shot. To combat this the only other way I see is to buff them with extra HPs. For example, I think people would still happily play figures such as eStorm or eRebel Trooper or rHeavy if they can get their point's worth. I think I'd be happy to play figures like rTrandos or eTrandos or rStorm or Dengar if they stays long enough to do something 2. related to point 1: when will HP stop? if this continues we'd need units having (hypothetical example) something like 50 HP so that you can get their points worth in other words, if we cannot stop the damage ceiling from continuously rising, we'd need to buff units with extra HPs or defensive abilities such that they're useful or can actually pose threats without the fear of being removed. How much "extra" HP should be "extra"?
  6. Increase the cost to make them less attractive as a start. Followed by banning or tweaking of command cards, in the extreme cases followed by flat out banning certain cards (ex. Gideon's been around for as long as I can remember, SoS, Blaze of Glory, Take Initiative are known to be swingy) Ensuring that only figures with cost starting perhaps 7-8 or above should have powerful 3-dice attack with great surge abilities. eStorm (3) being one-shotted by Jedi Luke (12) or AT-DP (9)? fair enough rStorm (2) being one-shotted by eRanger (4) or rNexu (4) being one-shotted by eJet (4)? ummm no notice that 3-dice attacks are fine provided that: 1. the unit costs enough to justify it (ex. Hatred Vader), or 2. the surge are relatively weak (ex. rHK droid, rEWebs, rProbe) 3. units with "virtual" dice such as eJet or Bossk or eRanger are considered 3-dice attacker as well only then can we start discussing what's appropriate for queen pieces such as Hatred Vader or Rogue Solo. We already have a great post here: imo the biggest bang-for-your-time would be start looking at all those Tier-1 units Extra thoughts: 1. for some units, removing their reroll abilities immediately makes them a lot crappier (ex. eGamo, Rogue Han, Hatred Vader) 2. for others, removing their passive bonus also immediately brings down their power curve (ex. eRanger, eRiot, Spectres, Jedi Luke, Hondo)
  7. The "benchmark" is decided by the company and playerbase, if FFG doesn't have any plans to release any further physical products on the horizon, it then falls to the player base, of course you could argue "but what is the appropriate benchmark then?" in which I say "most units should be doing perhaps ~3 damage/attack on average" instead of the commonly seen 5-6 damage/attack, with reasons already stated above how comes? imo it's a lot easier to nerf an unit than to buff it up, nerfing them means we only need to look at units from Wave 8 - 11 instead of the other way around (buffing units from Wave 1 - 7). The latter has a lot more units to go over, this would also handle the case where in the future if FFG decides to release a new power curve, we can just say "nope let's nerf those 5 Wave 12 units" instead of saying "welp, let's rework all of our 200 existing fixes"
  8. I wasn't specifically referring to Stormtroopers. My point was that when an unit has a fairly high chance of being one-shotted, it has to be cheap so it can do something useful before it dies so why not go the other way: make sure units can't be easily one-shotted so there's no need to make them awfully cheap? To do this first the damage curve must be brought down. Take Leia for an example: in the modern meta she might get wiped out in 1 shot, 2 if she's lucky. Elite ISBs are unplayable because there's a fairly high chance of being one-shotted. When you could have Captain Terro (13 HP) being one-shotted (by 6pt Onar) or Han Solo (12 HP) being one-shotted (by IG-88), those with lesser HP are just flat out unplayable unless they're costed at perhaps 1/2/3 pts. Hence I say the cost reduction is only a red herring and does not fix the root problem
  9. Let's toss aside the argument of so-and-so should cost how much for a moment. A figure's cost should be a reflection of its performance on the battlefield and what best determines the performance of a specific unit? I generally look at 3 main points weighted in this order: avg damage output, max damage output, min damage output. Notice I'm not overly concerned about health: a unit with 10 HP costing 15 pt is still fair game if most hostile figures can only do (expected, on average) 1 damage/attack to it in order words, "how many attack can a figure reasonably expect to take before it dies"? for the meta these days the answer seems to be, for the most part, 1, perhaps 2. This is due to most figures are able to reliably do 5-6 damage/attack, more if you stack command cards. This seems to the direction IACP is going: the power curve seems to hover somewhere between Wave 8 - Wave 9 lowering cost of older figures is just a red herring and does not address the root problem: the unit has to be cheap so that it can do something useful before it dies I'm in favor of lowering the above numbers down to "most figures are able to reliably do 3-4 damage/attack", again I'm only referring to most hostile figures on the battlefield. 13pt Hatred Vader does 7 damage/attack is fair game, but when you have 4 pt eRangers/5 pt eSentry and others who can consistently do 5+ damage/attack, figures such as Stormtroopers has to be made cheap because they're likely to just be one-shotted, hence my argument on nerfing the powerful rather than buffing the weak, and make the power curve hover somewhere between Wave 6 - Wave 7. I believe players would be more happy to take older figures like Leia or Farmboy Luke or Trandoshans or Heavy Stormtroopers or ISBs (even if there aren't IACP fixes) if they're expected to withstand ~3 shots instead of perhaps 1
  10. not entirely, let's say you increase the cost of Kanan, sure he'd less playable than before but at the mean time it would make other figures more playable simply because Kanan now isn't as played often as before. I stand by my point in which that I felt a better option is to decrease the power curve (nerf the queen pieces) than increase it (buff the underwhelming figures). However the key flaw in my argument is the time limit in tournaments: I've noticed a skirmish game usually runs to round 4 or 5 and takes 1.5h - 2h in a casual setting (at home or FLGS), because we play until someone reaches 40 VP or one of our armies is completely destroyed. That kind of time allocation won't be happening in FFG-sanctioned tournament events where the winner is frequently determined by round ~3. I've wrote it more here so just my 2c I sure might be running Stormtroopers or Trandoshans or Hired Guns or Bantha if I know that none of the high-damage attackers will be in play
  11. I remember there has been a discussion around Reactive Defenses when HotE initially came out, the keypoints were: 1. it's a relatively weak deck compared to others, you can see the votes on the BGG forum 2. there's 2 major builds for RD: one around 88-Z and the other one without The 2nd point matters because HotE introduces new Rebel equipment that pretty much gives guaranteed -dodge: 1 and 2 so if Rebels draws them your xp class cards will be useless if 88-Z is removed, that's on top of watching out for Cleave and Blast but then there's the debate on whether it's worth Rebels always spending their action on a droid that can be redeployed for free next round Around 88-Z I might go Mechanical protocol -> Infrared scanner -> Targeting sensors -> Remote activator Without 88-Z (knowing 88-Z might be removed) I might go Infrared scanner -> Targeting sensors -> Mechanical protocol -> Blaster emplacement -> Shielded Notice I wouldn't take Overclock regardless of build, the problem with Overclock is that it doesn't override the Imperial restriction of "may only perform 1 attack action" I personally would houserule it and only play Reactive Defenses if the above 2 Rebel equipments are removed from the item deck, otherwise I'd pick another Imperial class
  12. it might be easier to view if you could post those cards, you can make your own cards with the IA tools https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/282009-imperial-assault-tools-list-builder-card-editor-more-now-works-on-windows-7/ some initial observations endurance 5 is above what a hero typically starts with (most heroes are 4/4: 4 speed 4 endurance and becomes 3/3 once wounded). I would reduce the Endurance down to 4 loot boxes: I would add the restriction of NON-VALUABLE to all of them. I was so happy in my last campaign that the Rebel never drew Hondo's treasure from the supply deck, having this Jawa hero on board means the Rebels can cycle all the valuable stuff with ease the 1xp full pocket (allows drawing from discard) is beyond OP since it allows infinite cycling of grenades, imagine the following scenario: 1. the heroes (any hero) drew Frag Grenade 2. the heroes use Frag Grenade (blast 3), Frag Grenade is discarded 3. Jawa draws back the grenade 4. repeat step 2-3 The same can be said for Shock Grenade I would just remove the "strain to draw from discard" ability entirely 2xp explosive lob have the same problem (infinite blast 4) but I think it's fine leaving it as it is, as long as the infinite cycling is removed. I'm also not sure what you mean by +1 damage: +1 damage to the target space or +1 damage to everything (effectively an additional blast 1). The former is fine but the latter is not 3xp tech savvy: I think the 1st case already covers the 2nd case? Mak already have something similar to it 4xp scrap metal seems underwhelming as a 4xp ability, I'd buff it to 2 spaces instead of 1 space 4xp overcharged explosion on the other hand have the same problem as above. Does the 2nd use have the same cost? combined with explosive lob and full pocket you could potentially have an infinite cycling, 5-space range, blast 5, x2 effectively doing blast 10
  13. I didn't say allow endless time otherwise people would be there all day. My point being you would see 2 very different outcome if the game is played until 65min vs. until let's say game-end (someone reaches 40VP) at 90min, and imo the result at the 90min mark should be more heavily weighted because it is the "true" outcome, the problem is that you won't even see this outcome because at the 65min mark the judge would call "time's up" on that note, you could also have different outcome depending on what time you cut off the game at (ex. at 30min you might lose 15VP : 20VP but at 35min you might win at 27VP : 22VP), that doesn't seem right to me because it's an arbitrary cutoff and isn't what "eventually would have happened" alternate suggestion: instead of imposing a flat-65min rule for both players, chop down the time into individual action (ex. you must decide which group to activate in 30sec/1min, note this does not include actual attacking or dice rolls or command cards), it's how I cut down the time during campaign missions for AP players: after the initial mission briefing they have ~3min to discuss, but during a round they (4 players collectively as a group) have 1min to decide which hero to activate to do what. I think 30sec or 1min for a 1v1 skirmish is fair
  14. Just throwing another thought out here: if swarm groups = players taking longer to take actions = running out of time, then perhaps the time allocated is not sufficient or there should be a better measurement than "game over after X minutes"? in a typical non-tournament games with no time restrictions, you can reasonably expect the game will end with someone having 40VP either by killing enough figures or gaining enough VP through other means (ex. objectives, command cards...) and most games run until Round 4 sometimes Round 5 or on rare occasions even Round 6 or 7. However in a tournament game you can reasonably expect that the game will usually end in Round 3, rarely Round 4, sometimes you won't even get past Round 2, it just doesn't feel right that if somebody decide to play tournament games it might be a toss-up between game-over by 40VP or game-over by time take an imaginary example: it is currently Round 3, I have 20 VP and my opponent have 25 VP, I'm setting up my figures to gun down my opponent's Rogue Han Solo 10VP, but the 65min was called mid-Round 3 and I lost 20VP : 25VP but suppose this was in a non-tournament setting, in which case we continue playing until someone reaches 40VP. Han Solo was eliminated by the end of Round 3 and I won 42:35 on Round 5 My point being time should not be a factor that decides the winner, in the above example, even under the exact same scenario the victor would be swapped if you're playing tournament vs. non-tournament because of the time limit
  15. Keep in mind that my viewpoint is strictly outside tournament so everything I said might be totally wrong due to the timing involved: I don't play tournaments and I never tell my players about the time limit, we'd play until someone reaches 40VP or one of our army is wiped out, however many rounds that would take I agree with this post in general however I don't think this is solely something IACP has created. I have made many, many posts previously about the ability to do outrageous amount of damage in one shot, hence in-turn necessitating every other figure to be HP-buffed or become mini-queens. The solution should be to tune down that power curve (nerf the queen pieces) to an acceptable level instead of buffing every playable figure so that they can take the hit from the queen pieces, that in my opinion is the wrong direction to take. Right now most non-queen pieces have a fairly high chance of being wiped out in 1 attack by queen pieces which again necessitates buffing the non-queen pieces upward so that they can do something useful before they die, nerfing the queen pieces instead would solve those problems: 1. non-queens needs to be buffed so that they can do something useful before they die 2. queens needs to be buffed so that they can take the super-charged shot from other queens The biggest flaw of my argument? time limit: when I play at home or in stores there's no such thing as "the game will end after 65min". We play however long it would take for one of us to get to 40 VP or until either side is wiped out (the 2nd rarely ever happen). I understand this is not true for tournament plays. For example, I think Thrawn and Palpatine are actually much lesser threats in tournament vs non-tournaments since it's not uncommon for games to run to Round 4 or 5 because the 65min time limit is removed just my 2c TL;DR: let's remove the ability to do supercharged attacks than buffing figures
×
×
  • Create New...