Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheChrisLS

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the RRG under Fail, the following rule is included: “An effect that fails does not trigger any effects that would occur after a ship resolves that effect.” What about costs where the wording is “[Y]ou may spend 1 <charge> to perform a <boost> action...” (Afterburners) or [Y]ou may spend one <Force> to perform...” (Supernatural Reflexes)? If that action fails, is the charge still spent?
  2. True, but this can also lead to some other weird ideas, like: “Why can’t a dock ship Coordinate?” Then a ship with a docked ship with the Coordinate action essentially becomes a two action ship. That will throw off game balance. I can see why they did this: the mere ability to hide behind another ship’s shields to avoid fire is pretty mighty - keeping action economy up while doing so is game-changing.
  3. Agreed. That’s the best way to read this: the Pup engages as normal at its Initiative and can’t attack as it is in reserve, so it deploys after it has engaged.
  4. TheBitterFig has the problem nailed precisely. Well put!
  5. What's the rules interaction at work here? The letter of the rule is "If a ship is destroyed during the Engagement Phase, it is removed after all ships that have the same initiative as the currently engaged ship have engaged, which is called simultaneous fire." The Natash Pup is deployed, but it is now of the same initiative and has not engaged. There isn't a "its side's init", there is only an initiative step, which would seem to trigger the rule that it can attack at its initiative after emergency deployment. This could also be an issue on other docked ships which share the same initiative as the pilot.
  6. If a YV-666 equipped with the Natash Pup is destroyed after it has attacked, does the Pup also get an attack? RAW seems to indicate it does (it has the same initiative as the destroyed ship, and it deploys before the other ship is removed, thus it is allowed an attack per emergency deployment rules), but that feels super janky. Someone at my event mentioned that there has been some discussion of the timing of the engagement phase that the window for engagement closes before the Pup is deployed. I can't find that. Emergency Deployment specifies "before the carrier is removed from play", so does that mean after the window for engagements closes, or does that put the Pup into the engagement phase at its initiative and thus allows the attack?
  7. If only Gideon was limited to Rebel only, I guarantee you Hera would start showing up in Merc lists. I saw Hera in 2/3 of the Merc lists I faced at Worlds, and she was in at least two Top 16 Merc lists.
  8. Folks, this has been a great discussion, but now I think it is time to put our money where our mouths are. We have some good ideas, but what we don't have is data. So here is my suggestion: Let's choose one particular fix at a time, and play some games with that fix and without it. Choose viable, current meta lists in two scenarios, one objective based and one more kill-em-all based. We could use Uscru as the map to start, as it has both of those factors and has already been played extensively at Worlds. If someone has a better suggestion, I'm happy to consider them as well. An example could be to consider the fix of increasing the costs of Gideon and C-3PO. Play two games of a scenario without the fix, swapping lists to control for player skill. Then, play the same scenario, same basic lists, with the fixes put in place. For example, you could play Greg Monson's Han/Rangers list vs a Vader/Jet list, with the second set of games taking out a Smuggler or RHC and adding points to both C-3PO and Gideon. Another example: Replay the final using DT's and Greg's lists to test banning TA. After the first two games, play two more without Hera, Gideon, and TA in DT's list, and add in another 8 points. We should all play the same scenario and fix and then assemble a table of results so we can compare how these changes affect the lists. One thing we should NOT do is play the fix against itself, such as increasing the cost of Gideon and C-3PO then playing DT's and Greg's lists against each other. I think Bitterman has a good list of potential fixes: I think the best two to start testing would be limiting Hera and Gideon to Rebel Only (effectively the same as getting rid of Scum TA in practice) and increasing the prices of Gideon and C-3PO. Other thoughts?
  9. I think what we need are some experiments with proposed solutions. Set up scenarios vs set lists and players of comparable skill, then swap between the current meta and the proposed meta. I’ll build something later for review.
  10. For the sake of argument, how would nerfing Gideon and C-3PO be done? I don’t agree that it is needed for Rebels, but I’m wanting to set up experiments to determine the effects of various solutions.
  11. aermet69 does make a good point about the thematic elements of Temp Alliance, which aren't served nearly as well by non-unique. So the real question is: what benefits would such a change have beyond a simple retirement?
  12. I had a fantastic time at Worlds, and it was great reconnecting with so many people I've played before and meeting new attendees! I particularly enjoyed hanging out with the UK guys throughout the week. I just finished listening to the two part Zion's Finest/Fully Armed and Operational podcast of the Worlds experience, and I fully agree with the assessment they made that the meta is currently in the best place it has been since the game started competitively. I also agree that there is some room for improvement, and the future could be tricky. So I wanted to begin a discussion on how we, the IA players, feel the game could be improved within the current framework of the rules (I don't think the game has developed to a point where a new version is needed). Here are some of my observations, as informed by open discussions with the devs and listening to the podcasts: Temporary Alliance was initially put into the game as a way to increase options in the early stages of the game, but it has outlived its usefulness and is starting to constrain design space. The biggest example of this is the regular appearance of Gideon and/or Hera in Merc lists, even alongside Jabba. With Elite Jawas, the amount of support available to Mercs is equal to the Rebels, and Mercs have a lot of tricks that are unavailable to Rebels. The options for each faction are pretty set. Imperials need Zillo, eJets are must takes, and Vader is nearly a must take. Mercs need IG-88 and eWeequays along with support from Rebels. Rebels need the Care Package, Han, and eRangers are a near auto-include. Hunter and Smuggler command cards are dominant, which favors Mercs and Rebels, though the Vehicle cards are part of what makes eJets so good. Stacking cards allows huge shifts. I had Onar one-shot my AT-DP in a practice game with four command cards. We had seven dice stacked up on the dice tray (some to represent Assassinate and other modifiers). The maps in rotation have a huge effect on the meta, as seen in DT shifting from Vader, eJets, and Riots to his Worlds list as a result of the map change. Any changes have a very high bar of proof to put into effect: it's way to easy to make a change that creates way more problems than it fixes. It is perfectly possible to simply accept that these conditions are part and parcel of the design space and as long as they're considered in the future, new releases can contain balancing forces to bring things back to a balance. For myself, I think the number one change that needs to be made is that Temporary Alliance needs to be retired from the game. Does this significantly disadvantage Mercs compared to the other factions? If so, how would that be addressed? One comment that was made on the podcast is that eWeequays without Focus are still a significant threat, but eRangers without Focus are nothing to write home about. I completely agree, and note that between eJawa/C-3PO and Jabba, Mercs still have access to Focus. What are your thoughts? Is there a way we can start running some test games to determine how changes would be made? I'd love to do some control tests of top meta lists vs lists without Temporary Alliance and then with Temporary Alliance to see how the game would be affected.
  13. Here are the deployment cards: AT-DP 2x eJets eRiots rRiots with Cross Training rOfficer Zillo Rule By Fear I think these are the command cards... Grenadier Call the Vanguard Overrun Reinforcements x2 Fuel Upgrade Intelligence Leak Shared Experience Strategic Shift Brace Yourself Element of Surprise Planning Positioning Advantage Take Initiative Urgency I started 1-2, but then took the next four to finish 18th with 5-2. I had a FANTASTIC time.
  14. Ordinarily I'd be all over this, but I'll be running the System Open this year. I hope others would be interested thought! Are you a part of the Imperial Assault Northern California Facebook Group? You should ask there as well. Imperial Assault Northern California
  • Create New...