Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cnemmick

[IACP] Season 2 Content Finalized and Testing League #1 Starting Soon

Recommended Posts

The IACP has finalized our Season 2 content. We reduced the number of changes based on some concerns that there were too many. You can read more about which cards we removed and why on our website.

The IA Skirmish Vassal Module and TableTopAdmiral.com have been updated with the latest Season 2 content. Now is a great time to sign up for our Vassal Testing League #1. It is a 6-week event where you and your opponent play sometime within a 7-day window. Registration ends August 19th, so don't delay!

Join us in making Skirmish fun, fresh and worthy of your time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This content looks good.  Excited to test some of it out.  You guys are doing a great job.

At this point (now that a lot of the core set stuff has been worked on) I'd be really excited if season three had one (or possibly two) new figures.  We could appropriate some of the stuff from Legion.  Lots to choose from.  Even a totally new character using one of the Legion figures.  Something creative that could also help older figures.  Maybe a new guardian, if guardians are on the agenda to be fixed.

Anyway.  Good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd love to work on some new figures. However, from our Season 1 voting results, significantly less players wanting IACP to create brand new Deployments compared to fixing existing cards. Maybe that'll change when we ask again at the end of Season 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, personally, it is yes for new deployments, but only those using existing figures.

Or - maybe even better - alternative cards for the same characters. For example: Murne, young smuggler; Saska, talented gadgeteer (instead of balancing old one, creating new one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jarema said:

For me, personally, it is yes for new deployments, but only those using existing figures.

Or - maybe even better - alternative cards for the same characters. For example: Murne, young smuggler; Saska, talented gadgeteer (instead of balancing old one, creating new one)

I like your idea, but I think maybe they should fix all of the figures that don't work then maybe make completely new deployment cards for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 12:29 AM, Mandelore of the Rings said:

Yeah, I think I was one of those voting for no new Deployments... yet...     

Correct.  Before adding new stuff, we should fix the old stuff.  Establish your baseline and then add new content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 11:44 PM, NukeADuke said:

I like your idea, but I think maybe they should fix all of the figures that don't work then maybe make completely new deployment cards for them.

I agree.

I just mean, that for me personally, using new figures is a big no. And anything else is a matter of debate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ram said:

Is the ambition of the IACP to make every figure playable, an interesting option to put on the table? If not, why not?

It is my understanding they are looking to craft a certain meta.  It is something I have disagreed with since inception.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ram said:

Is the ambition of the IACP to make every figure playable, an interesting option to put on the table? If not, why not?

It's our ambition to make the game fun, fresh and worthy of your time.

How we're doing that currently is trying to increase the usage of existing cards that are below the power curve of cards produced since Jabba's Realm. For some cards, this means just changing points cost; for others, ability improvements or complete reworks are required. We've also changed cards to take a bit of their power away. Those cards are likely the only ones we'll nerf in that way.

The only meta we're trying to craft is one that is dynamic and cannot be dominated by one specific list or archtype. I don't believe we have enabled a list yet that matches up equally with Vader/Palp/Thrawn lists or Merc Hunter lists, but our changes are building towards that. We want to ADD pieces to the competitive meta without TAKING AWAY existing archtypes. (This is why we will not be increasing prices or nerfing cards like Vader, Thrawn & Merc Hunters.)

There's going to be some cards that might not be used more just because we can't find a way to make them competitively balanced. For example, we have some ideas about how we'd like to enable E-Web Engineers, but ultimately they may never be preferred over the other Imperial Heavy Weapon choices. We'll do our best to at least try to make them an option.

After most of the older cards have been addressed, we'll be looking to create new cards that feature figures not created for Imperial Assault. Legion small figures can be utilized on bases designed specifically for IA. We'll also be working on adding diversity in the map rotation for tournament settings once FFG OP has dropped support for the game.

There's plenty of disagreement with how we're trying to make Skirmish fun, fresh and worthy of our time. And that's fine; we appreciate folks making their own changes and solutions to existing design & rules issues. Skirmish only survives if people (both older players and players who buy an used IA collection second-hand) are excited to play Skirmish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cnemmick said:

The only meta we're trying to craft is one that is dynamic and cannot be dominated by one specific list or archtype. I don't believe we have enabled a list yet that matches up equally with Vader/Palp/Thrawn lists or Merc Hunter lists, but our changes are building towards that. We want to ADD pieces to the competitive meta without TAKING AWAY existing archtypes. (This is why we will not be increasing prices or nerfing cards like Vader, Thrawn & Merc Hunters.)

Yo, this is not going to work. I have seen balance discussions for more games then I can count where everyone calls for buffs to bring everything up to the power level of the OP stuff, and I have seen exactly zero games where the people in charge of actually making that work did that. If there's just a few things that are overpowered to the point that they're pushing a lot of other things out of the meta (ie, hunters), it's vastly easier to just nerf the OP stuff then it is to try and bring everything else up to that OP level.

If you want an example of why this is a bad idea, Spectre Cell was what happened when the IA designers tried to make new content that matches up equally with the current top tier lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Wintermute0 said:

Yo, this is not going to work. I have seen balance discussions for more games then I can count where everyone calls for buffs to bring everything up to the power level of the OP stuff, and I have seen exactly zero games where the people in charge of actually making that work did that. If there's just a few things that are overpowered to the point that they're pushing a lot of other things out of the meta (ie, hunters), it's vastly easier to just nerf the OP stuff then it is to try and bring everything else up to that OP level.

If you want an example of why this is a bad idea, Spectre Cell was what happened when the IA designers tried to make new content that matches up equally with the current top tier lists.

In my opinion, the problems with game creep in Imperial Assault is pretty unique to the game itself because of the way it was developed. If we look at the cards released over time, it was clear that the designers were trying to build Skirmish into a competitive game on the fly for several years. Those who designed Jabba's Realm clearly implemented a considerable shift in how Skirmish should be played by changing VP rules & amplifying the damage output (not just for Hunters). Because there is such a demarcation between those two eras, making the older stuff viable just isn't possible just nerfing a handful of Hunters & the Skirmish Upgrade Queen Pieces. 

Since the power level of existing pieces has to be raised anyways, why not just raise them to the approximate current power level? It's less invasive to buff most cards than to change all cards. Based off our players' feedback, they prefer having controlled improvements to existing cards. 

It is my understanding that the version of Spectre Cell that was released in Tyrants of Lothal was *not* the version that was given to playtesters. I think the lesson of Spectre Cell isn't that bad things happen when you try to make new content that matches up with current top-tier lists; the lesson is to not rush design changes out without testing *and also* be responsive when a released change is overpowered. Letting SC dominate Regionals & Worlds in 2019 left a bad taste in players' mouths, especially those who had jumped back into competitive IA during the Heart of the Empire meta.

Edited by cnemmick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response @cnemmick.

To me, building archetypes feels like a slow and cumbersome approach. I prefer making a big educated change and then making adaptations as things evolve. I want to have all pieces playable at once. That is the most diverse meta available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cnemmick said:

In my opinion, the problems with game creep in Imperial Assault is pretty unique to the game itself because of the way it was developed. If we look at the cards released over time, it was clear that the designers were trying to build Skirmish into a competitive game on the fly for several years. Those who designed Jabba's Realm clearly implemented a considerable shift in how Skirmish should be played by changing VP rules & amplifying the damage output (not just for Hunters). Because there is such a demarcation between those two eras, making the older stuff viable just isn't possible just nerfing a handful of Hunters & the Skirmish Upgrade Queen Pieces. 

Since the power level of existing pieces has to be raised anyways, why not just raise them to the approximate current power level? It's less invasive to buff most cards than to change all cards. Based off our players' feedback, they prefer having controlled improvements to existing cards. 

It is my understanding that the version of Spectre Cell that was released in Tyrants of Lothal was *not* the version that was given to playtesters. I think the lesson of Spectre Cell isn't that bad things happen when you try to make new content that matches up with current top-tier lists; the lesson is to not rush design changes out without testing *and also* be responsive when a released change is overpowered. Letting SC dominate Regionals & Worlds in 2019 left a bad taste in players' mouths, especially those who had jumped back into competitive IA during the Heart of the Empire meta.

Everyone always talks about Jabbas Realm like it was some sort of paradigm shift in figure design, but I think if you look at the actual figures, they're more or less on par with previous waves. Elite Weequays (unhidden) have pretty much the exact same damage output as HK droids, for example. I think the only actual power creep figurewise in that set is that a lot of the deployment cards are aggressively costed (ie, weequays and jet troopers being 7 points for 2 4 points figures), which I know was a conscious choice to make scum a viable faction in skirmish. The new, higher damage output everyone talks about is pretty much solely the result of the new set of hunter command cards that also came out with that wave.

I think buffing figures from older sets makes sense, particularly the ones from the first couple waves, because they often are just poorly costed. But trying to bring every single figure in the game up to the level where they can complete with scum hunters is a) way, way more work and b) going to be a balancing nightmare.

If your goal is just to make the skirmish metagame more balanced and feature a greater diversity of figures, you'd get a **** of a lot further with a short banlist then you will with dozens of pages of redesigned figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Wintermute0 said:

Everyone always talks about Jabbas Realm like it was some sort of paradigm shift in figure design, but I think if you look at the actual figures, they're more or less on par with previous waves. Elite Weequays (unhidden) have pretty much the exact same damage output as HK droids, for example. I think the only actual power creep figurewise in that set is that a lot of the deployment cards are aggressively costed (ie, weequays and jet troopers being 7 points for 2 4 points figures), which I know was a conscious choice to make scum a viable faction in skirmish. The new, higher damage output everyone talks about is pretty much solely the result of the new set of hunter command cards that also came out with that wave.

I think buffing figures from older sets makes sense, particularly the ones from the first couple waves, because they often are just poorly costed. But trying to bring every single figure in the game up to the level where they can complete with scum hunters is a) way, way more work and b) going to be a balancing nightmare.

If your goal is just to make the skirmish metagame more balanced and feature a greater diversity of figures, you'd get a **** of a lot further with a short banlist then you will with dozens of pages of redesigned figures.

Jabbas realm was a huge step up pretty much all over the line power level wise. It was the start of the hunter meta and the number of figures that were played from the earlier waves was low. Jedi Luke, Alliance rangers, Scum hunters and eJets pretty much were staples in all bands from day one and the command cards were very powerful. 

I for one does not feel that neither redesign or ban list is the way to go. Many of the deployments that we have today actually more or less havent been played yet. Just adapt the cost of the deployments that we have to make them playable. Also, if changing anything, the missions of the maps are really a good point to do redesign. 

I do feel that the approach that @DerBaer and others are driving is a lot more fruitfull then loads of card redesign and such. 

BUT: I really like the fact that the IACP exists. I think you guys are doing an awesome job. 

Edited by Ram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Wintermute0 said:

Everyone always talks about Jabbas Realm like it was some sort of paradigm shift in figure design, but I think if you look at the actual figures, they're more or less on par with previous waves. Elite Weequays (unhidden) have pretty much the exact same damage output as HK droids, for example.

I think you're contradicting yourself here by comparing the stats of Elite Weequays with HKs. That Prowl is a bulit-in ability on the Elite Weequay card means that Weequays will be taking at least one attack while Hidden, if not every attack; then they have another attack modifier in Raider's one-die Reroll. They also have surge abilities for Pierce 1 & +2 DMG, which are stronger abilities than the Regular HK's (Pierce 1 & +1 DMG). That Elite Weequays have a static +1 SURGE on their attacks AND an attack/defense die reroll is just much stronger than HKs.

Not factoring in any rerolls or Command cards, Focused Elite Weequays have roughly a 72% chance vs. a single die defender to do at least 5 DMG; Focused Regular HKs have roughly a 53% chance vs. a single die defender to do at least 5 DMG. The HKs defensive reroll will give a chance to prevent BLOCK 3 and DODGE results, but the offensive reroll isn't going to spike damage much higher thanks to the HKs' attack pool and surge abilities. That the Elite Weequays will almost always be Hidden is a significant improvement over the Regular HKs. 

21 hours ago, Wintermute0 said:

I think the only actual power creep figurewise in that set is that a lot of the deployment cards are aggressively costed (ie, weequays and jet troopers being 7 points for 2 4 points figures), which I know was a conscious choice to make scum a viable faction in skirmish. The new, higher damage output everyone talks about is pretty much solely the result of the new set of hunter command cards that also came out with that wave.

When Elite Jet Troopers were released as part of Jabba's Realm, they had the best native attack outcome compared to any other non-Unique Imperial Trooper unit released prior to that.

The new, higher damage output has also continued outside of Hunters since Jabba's Realm. Imperial Troopers released after Jabba's Realm either surpass Elite Jets in damage outcomes (Elite Sentry Droids) or are equivalent (Elite Riot Troopers). All the Skirmish versions of Campaign Rebel Heroes from Heart of the Empire & Tyrants of Lothal have better damage outcomes than Campaign Heroes released prior to Jabba's Realm.

The new Hunter cards that amplify attack output is probably the most powerful, noticeable, and (to some people) problematic changes introduced to IA in Jabba's Realm. But I disagree that it is the only thing people noticed in Jabba's Realm.

21 hours ago, Wintermute0 said:

I think buffing figures from older sets makes sense, particularly the ones from the first couple waves, because they often are just poorly costed. 

I disagree with the assertion that older cards "often are just poorly costed" because it implies that the abilities and survivability of the figure becomes acceptable at a low enough cost point. It does make sense for some cards, as we found with several of them in IACP Season 1. However for a majority of older Deployment cards, lowering the price point 1) does not necessarily increase the play ability of that figure and 2) potentially enables lists with excessive activation counts, which is something I think has to be carefully monitored.

(This isn't a dig on your Jawa Swarm list that won GenCon. I want there to be room for lists that have lean heavily into activation control via multiple single-figure Regular Deployments, so long as the opponent has opportunities to deny those lists from doing what they need to do. Your Jawa Swarm is nothing like the Ugnaught Swarm.)

Let me share a little bit about the development of two of IACP's Season 2 changes:

Gaarkhan is a Deployment that just wasn't going to work as-is, no matter the price point. His attack pool and surge abilities do not enable him to do at least 1 DMG vs. a black die (or even vs. a white die when a DODGE is not rolled). When he does move in to attack, even if he uses Charge first and then moves away, he cannot get far enough away to get focused-fired down pretty easily in 2 or 3 attacks. Gaarkhan could be dropped to 5 points. But at that price point, he's still worse than Jarrod Kelvin (who natively does more damage vs. single die defenders than Gaarkhan... with two yellow dice) or Tress Hacnua. It also goes against the design principle in IA that Wookiees should be 1) especially beefy and 2) expensive but worth the price point.

Jyn Odan started out in Season 2 as an new Elite Deployment card costing 6 points and having the same improvements as her current new card. As we were reviewing Season 2 materials in June, Jake Petersen suggested that we drop Jyn's Elite Deployment and just reduce the cost of her current Regular Deployment to 4. That seemed reasonable, since most of her stats seem to be in the range of what a Deployment card with a cost of 4 would look like. I try to alpha test as many of the changes we make before releasing a Season, so I ran Jyn at 4 in a Han Smuggler Box on Tarkin Initative (which I felt like was the most Smuggler's Box conductive map on the rotation). In both matches vs. my son, I never felt like I got value out of Jyn. In one game, she blanked her defense roll and got one-shot by Captain Terro; in the other, her Focused attack was able to stun Thrawn (who my son played way too far up) but then she was eliminated by two attacks from Elite Stormtroopers, despite being next to Threepio.

At that point I felt like Jyn was not on par with the other competitive figures that cost 4: I would have rather had Hera in my box instead of Jyn, because Focused Hera would actually do some damage and Hera would help with other attackers. And Jyn wasn't anywhere near as good as Greedo. After discussing it with the Steering Committee, we brought back her Elite Deployment card but tweaked it so that it would fit a card that cost 5 (instead of 6), with the idea of not only making her viable again for the Han Smuggler box but also making her fit better in a Mixed Rebel Hero list. If we improved her Regular Deployment card and kept the cost at 4, there was some concern that we might be making a figure that is better than Greedo who can then get brought into Merc lists as another cheap attacker.

@Wintermute0 I know we're going back-and-forth about the design direction of IACP, but I want you to know that I do respect your opinion and hope you continue to share it as we go forward. There's absolutely nothing wrong with your idea of balancing the meta via a bunch of nerfs to newer cards and then repricing older cards. The IACP needs the feedback of all the community members, and so far, a majority of them still disagree with the idea of nerfing newer Deployments.

Edited by cnemmick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure, if it really is a majority or rather a louder minority ...

In my opinion, there are some Deployment cards, that are so overpowered, that it's nearly impossible to buff all the others to achieve balance. And some units just should not be made cheaper. E.g. the Regular Stormtroopers should not be changed for several reasons (I've already given more than once). But a 2 point regular Stormtrooper will never be in balance with an elite Weequay, as long as you won't make the latter more expensive. Therefore, in my opinion, nerfing e.g. the elite Weequays is an absolute necessity to achieve balance.

Edited by DerBaer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

I'm not sure, if it really is a majority or rather a louder minority ...

One of the benefits of all the surveys we create is that we can quantify the amount of folks who want a specific change or not. There are several posts up on the IACP website that discuss polling results from Season 1 testing & the Season 1 Approval Vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

That's what I mean. Your overall group are those folks, that visit the IACP site regularly. Those folks supposedly have a pro-IACP mindset in the first place.

I agree with this. I think the feedback the IACP is getting probably skews pretty positively, because the people who don't really care for it just won't engage with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cnemmick said:

 

Quote

I think you're contradicting yourself here by comparing the stats of Elite Weequays with HKs. That Prowl is a bulit-in ability on the Elite Weequay card means that Weequays will be taking at least one attack while Hidden, if not every attack; then they have another attack modifier in Raider's one-die Reroll. They also have surge abilities for Pierce 1 & +2 DMG, which are stronger abilities than the Regular HK's (Pierce 1 & +1 DMG). That Elite Weequays have a static +1 SURGE on their attacks AND an attack/defense die reroll is just much stronger than HKs.

Not factoring in any rerolls or Command cards, Focused Elite Weequays have roughly a 72% chance vs. a single die defender to do at least 5 DMG; Focused Regular HKs have roughly a 53% chance vs. a single die defender to do at least 5 DMG. The HKs defensive reroll will give a chance to prevent BLOCK 3 and DODGE results, but the offensive reroll isn't going to spike damage much higher thanks to the HKs' attack pool and surge abilities. That the Elite Weequays will almost always be Hidden is a significant improvement over the Regular HKs.

Yes, but Weequays have to spend an action to hide to get better damage then HKs, which is not free. I agree that Weequays are better then HK droids, but the gap is not as big as people make it out to be.

Quote

When Elite Jet Troopers were released as part of Jabba's Realm, they had the best native attack outcome compared to any other non-Unique Imperial Trooper unit released prior to that.

The new, higher damage output has also continued outside of Hunters since Jabba's Realm. Imperial Troopers released after Jabba's Realm either surpass Elite Jets in damage outcomes (Elite Sentry Droids) or are equivalent (Elite Riot Troopers). All the Skirmish versions of Campaign Rebel Heroes from Heart of the Empire & Tyrants of Lothal have better damage outcomes than Campaign Heroes released prior to Jabba's Realm.

Yeah, Jet Troopers are better then every other trooper before them because every other trooper before them was either a) cheaper or b) kind of bad. And of course sentry droids do more damage then jet troopers, they're more expensive units, so they should.

Quote

The new Hunter cards that amplify attack output is probably the most powerful, noticeable, and (to some people) problematic changes introduced to IA in Jabba's Realm. But I disagree that it is the only thing people noticed in Jabba's Realm.

I disagree with the assertion that older cards "often are just poorly costed" because it implies that the abilities and survivability of the figure becomes acceptable at a low enough cost point. It does make sense for some cards, as we found with several of them in IACP Season 1. However for a majority of older Deployment cards, lowering the price point 1) does not necessarily increase the play ability of that figure and 2) potentially enables lists with excessive activation counts, which is something I think has to be carefully monitored.

(This isn't a dig on your Jawa Swarm list that won GenCon. I want there to be room for lists that have lean heavily into activation control via multiple single-figure Regular Deployments, so long as the opponent has opportunities to deny those lists from doing what they need to do. Your Jawa Swarm is nothing like the Ugnaught Swarm.)

I agree with all of this.

Quote

Let me share a little bit about the development of two of IACP's Season 2 changes:

Gaarkhan is a Deployment that just wasn't going to work as-is, no matter the price point.

I'm going to break this down pretty carefully, because I think what you did with Gaarkhan exemplifies a lot of the problems I have with the IACP's approach to balancing.

Quote

His attack pool and surge abilities do not enable him to do at least 1 DMG vs. a black die (or even vs. a white die when a DODGE is not rolled).

This is just cherry-picking the worst possible attack outcome and using it to make his attack look worse then it is. If you look at Gaarkhan's actual expected attack results, they match up pretty closely with, say, an elite Gammorean Guard. That's not un-salvageably awful, that's just fine. Every figure in the game can totally wiff an attack roll, it's just how the dice system in IA works. You can't count that as a weakness.

Quote

When he does move in to attack, even if he uses Charge first and then moves away, he cannot get far enough away to get focused-fired down pretty easily in 2 or 3 attacks.

See, this is what trying to balance around hunters gets you. The game is in a state where it's unthinkable that any figure could be left in a position where they could get shot at, because they will 100% die. The only defense is to not get attacked, because the balance between offense and defense is so completely out of wack.

Quote

Gaarkhan could be dropped to 5 points. But at that price point, he's still worse than Jarrod Kelvin (who natively does more damage vs. single die defenders than Gaarkhan... with two yellow dice) or Tress Hacnua.

For 5 points, Gaarkhas does a little less damage on average then Jarrod, but he can more further and attack, focus himself, get 2 attacks, and has more health. I'd play him as is for 5 points, and I would definitely play him as is for 4. He's not a total mess, he's a pretty well-designed figure who's just overcosted.

Quote

It also goes against the design principle in IA that Wookiees should be 1) especially beefy and 2) expensive but worth the price point.

Where did this "design principle" come from? There's like 5 Wookiees in IA, and their costs are all over the place (figure costs 14, 9, 8, 6, and 5). I agree that they're all tanky, but only Drokkatta could reasonably be called worth her price point. There's no consistancy there to make that kind of sweeping statement.

Quote

Jyn Odan started out in Season 2 as an new Elite Deployment card costing 6 points and having the same improvements as her current new card. As we were reviewing Season 2 materials in June, Jake Petersen suggested that we drop Jyn's Elite Deployment and just reduce the cost of her current Regular Deployment to 4. That seemed reasonable, since most of her stats seem to be in the range of what a Deployment card with a cost of 4 would look like. I try to alpha test as many of the changes we make before releasing a Season, so I ran Jyn at 4 in a Han Smuggler Box on Tarkin Initative (which I felt like was the most Smuggler's Box conductive map on the rotation). In both matches vs. my son, I never felt like I got value out of Jyn. In one game, she blanked her defense roll and got one-shot by Captain Terro; in the other, her Focused attack was able to stun Thrawn (who my son played way too far up) but then she was eliminated by two attacks from Elite Stormtroopers, despite being next to Threepio.

At that point I felt like Jyn was not on par with the other competitive figures that cost 4: I would have rather had Hera in my box instead of Jyn, because Focused Hera would actually do some damage and Hera would help with other attackers. And Jyn wasn't anywhere near as good as Greedo. After discussing it with the Steering Committee, we brought back her Elite Deployment card but tweaked it so that it would fit a card that cost 5 (instead of 6), with the idea of not only making her viable again for the Han Smuggler box but also making her fit better in a Mixed Rebel Hero list. If we improved her Regular Deployment card and kept the cost at 4, there was some concern that we might be making a figure that is better than Greedo who can then get brought into Merc lists as another cheap attacker.

Counterpoint: I think you could make a reasonable argument that Jyn doesn't need any changes. She sees a reasonable amount of play as is. She was in the 2nd place list at Gencon this year and in the winning list last year. She already is viable in the Han Smuggler box.

I personally think she's a bit weak, but if you just gave here like 2 more hp, she'd be a solid figure. She doesn't need a big redesign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wintermute0 said:

I agree with this. I think the feedback the IACP is getting probably skews pretty positively, because the people who don't really care for it just won't engage with it.

Yeah. And the results are from, what, 50 people?

Granted, that's 49 people more than are playing with any of my house rules 😉 so fair play to you, and if you and they are getting fun from the IACP then I'm not about to tell anyone they're having Wrong Fun. But let's not pretend it says anything statistically significant about the wider player base (what's left of it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...