interesting proposal about sniper spam

[KommanderKeldoth 3,141]

2 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Where's that stated?  The article doesn't show their card or mention the Critical keyword.  Another factoid from a podcast I missed?

And the problem I see with adding fire to other mortars and snipers is two-fold.  Can you actually do that, or will adding their fire only work for Shoretroopers?  The other issue is if you have to have line of sight, it becomes a race between the sniper and mortar to see who can get the kill first.  At best, the mortar will likely have 2 HP, and a sniper with pierce will almost certainly win that race.

It's laid out in the notorious scoundrels podcast interview with the designers. The mortar has critical and suppressive and is a corps Detatchment. 

If you are forcing your opponent's snipers to shoot at mortars in a race against the clock then they are having an effect on the sniper war.

[Polda 4,281]

So in competitive play you take 3 snipers to have 6 activations of warm up between yours and enemy scouts before you can play the game? 

Maybe cap lists at 10 activations? It's not like the 12-13 activation lists contain a lot of unit variety we'd be losing out on.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Polda

[KommanderKeldoth 3,141]

I actually like the idea of capping activations at 8 for tournaments.  It would force people to think a lot harder about what units they are including (3 snipers? cool, now you can only have 4 corps max because you also have to have a commander) and it would help cut down the time per game which has been an issue at big events.  It would also allow some of the more expensive units to be more viable because people wouldn't have to worry as much about activation count maxing.

Wouldn't really effect casual play, but if you are just playing casually you and your opponent probably aren't bringing 3 snipers every game anyway.

[Derrault 1,091]

1 hour ago, Polda said:

So in competitive play you take 3 snipers to have 6 activations of warm up between yours and enemy scouts before you can play the game? 

Maybe cap lists at 10 activations? It's not like the 12-13 activation lists contain a lot of unit variety we'd be losing out on.

That’s a terrible idea.

[Staelwulf 194]

13 hours ago, Derrault said:

That’s a terrible idea

That's a terrible argument 😜

[Alpha17 2,853]

I hate to agree with Derrault, but yeah, capping activations is a terrible idea.  It may be targeted at snipers, but will hurt other list types as well.  The list I ran at the RPQ a week or so back had ten activations, and only a single sniper team.  E-Web lists (I can't be the only one using them, am I?) will be hurt, and any reason to use the generic commander will likely go out the window.  I think such a cap would hurt rebels more than Imperials.  They have more spam options and can maximize activations without even using snipers.  As annoying as snipers are, I'd rather use tactics and strategy to beat them than an arbitrary rule change. 

[lunitic501 302]

4 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I hate to agree with Derrault, but yeah, capping activations is a terrible idea.  It may be targeted at snipers, but will hurt other list types as well.  The list I ran at the RPQ a week or so back had ten activations, and only a single sniper team.  E-Web lists (I can't be the only one using them, am I?) will be hurt, and any reason to use the generic commander will likely go out the window.  I think such a cap would hurt rebels more than Imperials.  They have more spam options and can maximize activations without even using snipers.  As annoying as snipers are, I'd rather use tactics and strategy to beat them than an arbitrary rule change. 

Agreed and I feel like this will only hurt factions like the CIS, who will rely on having those higher activation lists because there corps units are so weak/cheap.

[Alpha17 2,853]

9 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

Agreed and I feel like this will only hurt factions like the CIS, who will rely on having those higher activation lists because there corps units are so weak/cheap.

Oh, definitely.  I didn't think about the impact this would have on the CIS.  I expect that 6 unit corps spam will be how you start building their lists, so if we limited lists to 8 units, they'd have all of one slot left to fill after picking their commander. 

[Polda 4,281]

On 5/17/2019 at 12:21 AM, Mep said:

Easy, what you do is snipe their snipers before they can shoot with your snipers.

You have to go after them turn run with long range units of your own turn one or just accept the plinking they are going to give you. They are good, but they don't wipe out a full squad all at once. They are a slow burn. One of the reasons people take them is they are a cheap activation. Having a pass mechanism in game like Imperial Assault will take away a lot of their appeal.

Unfortunately I don't think a pass mechanic will help here.

Imperial Assault usually had the delay units be cheap support pieces (think Veers, Leia, Krennic, generic officers) who either could not attack or had short range dice pools. 
Snipers can help you "pass" and start putting wounds on your opponents units.

Right now these filler activations can contribute to the fight easily and they do not feel like a difficult choice. 

You have 3 Special Force slots, and can take three cheap Special Forces units that don't really fight for said slots with anything (It would seem that competitive scene has deemed wookiees and pathfinders "meh" and Imps can just Entourage whatever doesn't fit). 

 

This could possibly be addressed by:

- Making the Strike teams or the sniper minis unique (my vote would go to the latter)

- Having a cap on number of units you can bring in competitive play list building to stop the race to 10+ (How long will the rounds have to be for someone to finish activating their Separatist droid swarms? :D) 

- Possibly re-working the Rank Restrictions (I would not like to see Special Forces slots decrease as it would hurt rebels a lot more than it would Imperials.)

The first option could just shift the filler role to generic commanders and the naked trooper units Alex Davy loves so much and make it more of an interesting choice to get to that high activation count. 
Edit: It would also not require a sniper release for Clones and Separatists and competitive players having to buy three darn boxes of 6 models to only use 2 models from each box... 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Polda

[Mep 2,291]

Either a pass mechanic or a cap on number of total units is best for the game. I actually like a cap on the number of units. It does get the game moving quicker with fewer activations and gives a reason to bring in higher priced units.

[azeronbloodmoone 189]

i see more a unit cap coming in play later on that way it kinda force people to play with units they don't normally go for. specially right when legion 2.0 comes in or a huge point jump in commandos.  we will see either after either this world or next world if they want to change up anything i guess.

[thepopemobile100 977]

I find it silly that you're bringing up a 2.0 release already when the game is barely a year old. With how rough Xwing 2.0 launched, I doubt they'll want to do with this game so soon.

I don't dislike the idea of a pass mechanic and am willing to see one implemented.  I am however opposed to a total unit cap. I don't want a Herohammer situation to pop up, which certainly would if capped at 8. It also neuters rebels competitively and would certainly do that to CIS as well. It buffs units that certainly don't need it (deathtroopers mostly, but also the occupier) without helping the ones that do (Still no reason to take Vader competitively over Palpatine). The only good thing about it is to help with is game time, but it's not worth making half of the game's factions worthless competitively.

[Djaskim609 431]

I think there's plenty of room for variety in the game by limiting number of units or even unit types, like the play you have for some of the different campaigns and missions. Tournament variety without sweeping changes could help play be less stale. 

[TauntaunScout 4,276]

On 5/20/2019 at 8:41 PM, Djaskim609 said:

I think there's plenty of room for variety in the game by limiting number of units or even unit types, like the play you have for some of the different campaigns and missions. Tournament variety without sweeping changes could help play be less stale. 

GW used to do something like this and it worked pretty well. They'd publish tournament rules in advance which usually had some sort of addition/subtraction to the normal army composition rules. Then they studied what worked and didn't work in it for next time, and it helped inform the next edition of the rules.

[FearofaBlankPlanet 74]

I don't have nearly enough experience to know whether strike teams *need* fixing but it would be nice to see other special forces units. 

Would giving the strike teams the detachment special rule similar to what shoretroopers and rebel vets have be an option? 

[Aurelus 38]

Want to reduce snipers?  Give Rebels better options for Special Forces.

Want to reduce snipers? Eliminate the Entourage keyword.

Fixed.

The game is starting to suffer from poor design choices.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Aurelus

[Derrault 1,091]

20 minutes ago, Aurelus said:

Want to reduce snipers?  Give Rebels better options for Special Forces.

Want to reduce snipers? Eliminate the Entourage keyword.

Fixed.

The game is starting to suffer from poor design choices.

In most strategy games, and war, people adapt to opponent actions.

ie If you think Snipers are very likely, plan accordingly with counter-sniper units. They exist, players can use them (or not; but then they should stop whining about it). 

[Aurelus 38]

15 minutes ago, Derrault said:

In most strategy games, and war, people adapt to opponent actions.

ie If you think Snipers are very likely, plan accordingly with counter-sniper units. They exist, players can use them (or not; but then they should stop whining about it). 

A counter is not a fix.  

Introducing units that make taking snipers over something "better" a difficult decision is a fix.  Anything that promotes diversity in the game is beneficial. 

 

 

[FearofaBlankPlanet 74]

2 hours ago, Aurelus said:

Want to reduce snipers? Eliminate the Entourage keyword.

I assume you mean the part of the rule that allows you a 'free' SF slot? 

Either way I thought the rule was a neat way to encourage players to take IRG or DT's with their respective leaders (Palp, Krennic) to add theme. 

I don't really have a problem with Entourage; it helps add variety to the table. 

[ABXY 1,019]

3 hours ago, Aurelus said:

Introducing units that make taking snipers over something "better" a difficult decision is a fix.

That sounds more like a sure-fire path to power creep. 

😖

 

(if it's a genuine problem, I'd personally prefer to see list composition restrictions resolve it. Sniper weapons becoming Strike Team only, and Strike Teams becoming a detachment of a Scout Squad - creating a larger investment decision) 

[Derrault 1,091]

5 hours ago, Aurelus said:

A counter is not a fix.  

Introducing units that make taking snipers over something "better" a difficult decision is a fix.  Anything that promotes diversity in the game is beneficial. 

 

 

No that’s the point, if they have a counter, they don’t need fixing. 

[Aurelus 38]

7 hours ago, ABXY said:

That sounds more like a sure-fire path to power creep. 

😖

 

(if it's a genuine problem, I'd personally prefer to see list composition restrictions resolve it. Sniper weapons becoming Strike Team only, and Strike Teams becoming a detachment of a Scout Squad - creating a larger investment decision) 

My poor choice of words.

Point I am trying to make is that the Special Forces slot should make for difficult choices.  As a Rebel, why would I take PFs or Wookies over snipers?  PFs are not great, Wookies are pretty good, but situational... Both are expensive.

Imperial has the option to take 2 snipers and potentially 2 DTs (which are too good for the points) or 2 IRG which are solid... Opening up a fourth SF slot, and allowing for free commands with Entourage.

On one side you have units not really worth spending points on that really make the choice obvious.  On the other, you have good options that you can spend the points on since the army composition rules are being bent.

 

[Derrault 1,091]

8 minutes ago, Aurelus said:

My poor choice of words.

Point I am trying to make is that the Special Forces slot should make for difficult choices.  As a Rebel, why would I take PFs or Wookies over snipers?  PFs are not great, Wookies are pretty good, but situational... Both are expensive.

Imperial has the option to take 2 snipers and potentially 2 DTs (which are too good for the points) or 2 IRG which are solid... Opening up a fourth SF slot, and allowing for free commands with Entourage.

On one side you have units not really worth spending points on that really make the choice obvious.  On the other, you have good options that you can spend the points on since the army composition rules are being bent.

 

Pathfinders are paratroopers: They exist to grab objectives from turn 1 and to flank enemy approaches to those objectives; such that enemies won’t have safe paths of approach. That’s pretty much their niche.

Wookies are close assault SF; they have the hp and terrain ignoring features needed to push on an objective and tie enemies up in melee.

Commandos and Scouts are fine, but they don’t do the IRG/Wookie or Pathfinder/DTs roles. 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Derrault

[buckero0 1,956]

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

Pathfinders are paratroopers: They exist to grab objectives from turn 1 and to flank enemy approaches to those objectives; such that enemies won’t have safe paths of approach. That’s pretty much their niche.

Wookies are close assault SF; they have the hp and terrain ignoring features needed to push on an objective and tie enemies up in melee.

Commandos and Scouts are fine, but they don’t do the IRG/Wookie or Pathfinder/DTs roles. 

Am I the only one that shies away from Wookiees in combat?  I frankly don't like the wookiee as a unit.  They don't shoot that well, they can't get shot or they die and in combat, they often die faster than the enemy that they're in combat with.  (not having a save just makes them poor for the price you pay for them) I'm still mad their gun upgrade is so expensive since it doesn't jive with the role they were given.

In regards to Snipers, maybe I need to play against more diverse opponents, but I find that all the battle reps I've watched, people seem to hem and haw and hide behind things for 3 turns and then play the game.  So the only figures getting shots are the snipers and occasional command card bombardment.  Is this how most People play?  I know I should rein it in a little bit but most of the games I have played, I've made contact with the enemy turn 1 or turn 2 at the latest.  Snipers lose some of their amazing'ness' when they are dead. When they are wiped out, the medical droid can't bring them back.  Maybe it's the terrain we play on.

[DreadPiratGinger 8]

Given what's in the new RR, I think the mortar's will be lumped in with a Shoretrooper squad for building and deployment purposes, so I doubt that they will be super prevalent (pg30 Detaachment).  As far as the snipers go, well, I'm certainly not an expert, but I think their value has less to do with what they contribute and more to do with generally swelling the activation pool.  The suppression doesn't hurt either.

 

I'm curious to see if the snipers get changed to be more like the mortar teams, meaning they would become a detachment of the scouts/commandos.